Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

"WP:VPP" redirects here. For proposals, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals).

The policy section of the village pump is intended for discussions about already-proposed policies and guidelines, as well as changes to existing ones. Discussions often begin on other pages and are subsequently moved or referenced here to ensure greater visibility and broader participation.

• If you wish to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals). Alternatively, for drafting with a more focused group, consider starting the discussion on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, the Manual of Style, or another relevant project page.
• For questions about how to apply existing policies or guidelines, refer to one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
• If you want to inquire about what the policy is on a specific topic, visit the Help desk or the Teahouse.
• This is not the place to resolve disputes regarding the implementation of policies. For such cases, consult Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
• For proposals for new or amended speedy deletion criteria, use Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after 7 days of inactivity. To keep this page's size accessible, discussions with more than about 100 comments should be split to a separate page.

« Archives, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214

Current status of translation tools considered harmful.

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Current status of translation tools considered harmful.

 – voorts (talk/contributions) 21:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

First: I DO understand there are reasons Why_machine_translation_is_disabled_in_content_translation. That making it too easy to make crappy LLM-assisted translations is bad. But the current situation is making proper LLM-assisted translation unnecessarily way more difficult than it should be. With the LLM features disabled, the Wikipedia:Content translation tool is worse than useless. It's user-hostile. Felt this strongly at step 7-8 below, and also when citations wouldn't copy over (at step 4-6, below).

Proposal: Wikipedia:Content_translation_tool (uncrippled) should be available. On a limited basis, i.e. one-translation-to-draft-space-at-at-a-time-per-editor-with-1000+-edits.

If rehabilitating the tools is mostly opposed, the tool should be disabled/deprecated.

Post mortem:

1. I noticed a redlink to Stalinon in List of withdrawn drugs. I noticed there was a french version of the page. I decided to translate it.
2. I'm skilled in both the origin and target languages.
3. So, I started with a machine translation from page on French 'pedia, performed by my browser's built-in translation feature. Because I intended to immediately refine it to proper English, so I added a {{under construction}} with an explanation.
4. I thought the citations copied over, and it looked like they would, but after saving, noticed they didn't, at all. Ugh. See image Mirage:

   

   'Screen Shot of Wikipedia GUI editor apparently ready to save the content of translated fr Stalinon page, complete with all its citations'

5. I scratch my head, wondering: "Glitch or are would-be translators being actively prevented from starting with a machine translation?" If intentional, it makes me want to abandon the effort. Is it?
6. I decide that if the references (which I see will need fixing/refinement) can be moved over, I want to proceed. But I don't see how. I don't understand why they didn't make it.
7. I tried to restart, using what Wikipedia:Translation led me to - Wikipedia:Content_translation_tool, assuming it would be helpful, but it's been crippled. With the LLM translation features disabled, the Wikipedia:Content translation tool is worse than useless. It's user-hostile. I see there's a CS1 translator module but I guess it's broken? Crippled? It's stated "all you need to do is copy the citation from the source and paste it into the en-wiki article, preview, fix any errors, and publish " - by this it's meant it has to be done citation by citation? Why? Seems like intentional discouragement - a violation of WP:bite.
8. Very unpleasant feeling. Feeling bitten by editor-hostile documentation/process. I notice I better draftify the page, which I do.

Seems clear to me that blocking the LLM tool for ALL users violates our core principles. e.g. "As always, assume good faith." (WP:DNB guideline and WP:AGF).

I don't think the Wikipedia:Content_translation_tool should remain crippled (I guess I'm proposing revisiting that question I see was decided in 2016). How 'bout we make it available, say on a one-translation-to-draft-space-at-at-a-time-per-editor basis, ? If it is to be kept intentionally crippled (the LLM translation features are to remain disabled) then at least it should be disabled/deprecated so would-be translators don't have to find out the hard way they are being actively prevented from starting with a machine translation?

Support - as proposer. If I hadn't run into all these hurdles, I wouldn't be pissed off and would have finished the translation by now. -- RememberOrwell (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Estimates are that, before machine translation was turned off, 95% of articles created with this tool were unacceptable without significant additional work. That's a very worrying figure, is there any evidence that this has changed over time? If we've only got a 5% usability rate then I really don't think it should be turned back on.

BTW AGF and DNB wouldn't apply to this situation, they're both behavioural guidelines describing the way that one editor should treat another editor. It doesn't mean that we presume editors can use certain tools competently (I think that's what you mean here?) In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 03:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The source for this seems to be one user's informal experiment from 2016. Given the very rapid improvement of machine translation over this period, I don't think it's fair to assume we'll necessarily see the same issues. (We may see new ones, if the machine translation now incorporates LLMs that hallucinate instead of just making stupid decisions about idioms and so on). Rusalkii (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, we are seeing new ones. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

No articles have been created with an (uncrippled) Wikipedia:Content_translation_tool in years. No?

Re. new ones: OKA "was mostly relying on cheap labor from contractors in the Global South". Relevance?

Also, what was the justification for moving this from where I posted it, and

What was the justification for not notifying me of the move? And Voorts , why exactly didn't it belong at AN? That's where previous discussions on this topic took place. RememberOrwell (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

AN is for discussing issues needing administrative attention. I don't know why these past conversations occurred at AN. As for notification, there's literally a link at AN to this thread and moving a discussion doesn't unsubscribe you from it. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:56, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I was following precedent. Don't see why this isn't an issue needing administrative attention, now, even though discussion of the same issue was appropriate for there in 2016. OK. It seems my alerts/notifications glitched or I missed 'em-I'm getting them now but didn't see any initially. RememberOrwell (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Linking for historical interest WP:AN/CXT. There are still very substantial numbers of unreviewed translations from that era, about which nothing is being done or will ever be done, because the community has made conflicting decisions on this. The speedy deletion criterion has been retired and the speedy draftification process withdrawn. The number of editors willing to follow the current process for dealing with them is exactly zero.

Is it feasible to make access to the AI-assisted content translation tool a granted user-right? I have no idea whether that could work.—S Marshall T/C 08:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at WP:Village pump (proposals) rather than AN? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:17, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I wondered that myself, I think it's because the original 2016 discussions took place at AN? In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 10:59, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Editors can (and do) make bad machine translations in good faith. Taking steps to prevent this is not assuming bad faith since the behavior is not innately bad faith.

It's unclear how equally preventing ALL users from accessing a feature to prevent potential misuse is covered by Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Intentional hurdles that prevent good machine translations done in good faith is assuming bad faith. Unless 'assuming bad faith' is understood poorly. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

The content translation tool was somewhat deprecated long before llms became involved, so the reasons were not "making it too easy to make crappy LLM-assisted translations is bad". Given that, I'm not following the framing that disabling llm tools is crippling the tool, or even the particular relevance of llms to this. The use of the machine translation tool is, as you felt, intentionally discouraged, and again this was long before llms became available. That aside, problems with the features of the tool are not under the control of the en.wiki community, as it is maintained by the WMF (mw:Content translation). CMD (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The content translation tool was never deprecated at all. It's only the machine translation module inside it that was disliked, and it was largely disliked because it was accidentally enabled with no warning, and one person made a huge number of bad translations before we figured out what the problem was and stopped it.

The content translation tool itself solves two problems for us, namely getting the source of the translated article properly linked in the edit summary, and getting the article automatically linked in Wikidata. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you not understand a particular part of "I see there's a CS1 translator module but I guess it's broken? Crippled? It's stated "all you need to do is copy the citation from the source and paste it into the en-wiki article, preview, fix any errors, and publish " - by this it's meant it has to be done citation by citation? Why*? Seems like intentional discouragement - a violation of WP:bite." ? Your claim about framing isn't reflective of someone who understood that. The Wikipedia:Content_translation_tool - apparently better known as the "CXT tool" or "CT tool" (?) has been crippled. Disabling machine translation tools (including llm tools) the CXT tool generally relies on is crippling the CXT tool. Whether folks acknowledge seeing it or not.

• Are you blaming that on the WMF?

Like the questionable, aggressive removals of my requests at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Current_status_of_translation_tools_considered_harmful. which leave me once-again feeling bitten by editor-hostile documentation/process.

Feels like the refusal to see that "As always, assume good faith." (which is policy) is not compatible with what is happening - - the blocking of access to the tool to anyone translating to English!

In other words, insisting my perceptions aren't valid feels like gaslighting. With tortured linguistic semantic claims. RememberOrwell (talk) 07:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Not sure how you're reading gaslighting. Your perception, that there was discouragement, was correct. CMD (talk) 07:07, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

LOL. You're telling me what my perception is, and implying that when I tell you what my perception is, I'm wrong.

OMG. RememberOrwell (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

As someone who occasionally uses our Content Translation tool (translating from English) and patrols edits by others who do the same, I have to say that the Google translation service it uses has improved immensely over the last couple of years. Rather than pushing people toward general-purpose LLMs (which we cannot prevent), we should encourage them to use our in-house tool, with its two-column translation interface, instant preview, category editing, reference transfer, and other wiki-specific features. It also flags edits with too much unmodified machine-translated text and requires the user to confirm before publishing them. And yes, restrict machine translation to, say, extendedconfirmed users. The tool feels a bit abandoned, probably because WMF tends to respond best to pressure from this wiki—and there hasn't been much. Ponor (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Ponor When I try to use the in-house tool, I find no translation tool. What is this Google translation service it uses that you speak of? When I tried to use it, no translation occurred.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ContentTranslation?from=fr&to=en&targettitle=Stalinon&page=Stalinon is where I tried to use it. Each time I clicked translate, it just copied the French over.

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: Umm... equally preventing ALL users from accessing a feature to prevent potential misuse is assuming bad faith of ALL users . RememberOrwell (talk) 17:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

That's what this req. for comments is about. There's this note on top of the tool on this wiki: »On the English Wikipedia this tool is limited to extended confirmed editors, and the machine translation component is disabled for all users«. See if this one works, @RememberOrwell: CT Croatian to French Ponor (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Ah, so it ( machine translation component ) is only disabled for translation to English? Yes, I see https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speciale:TraduzioneContenuti&from=fr&page=Stalinon&to=it works. (the link you provided did not work for me - for other reasons - "Il y a une traduction en cours par Ponor. ..."). RememberOrwell (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes. On other wikis, the machine translation works as intended. I have used CXT for all of my translations, as I find it saves me more time than it spends, but it's very broken. Even if the initial machine translation bit worked, all the rest of your issues still would happen. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Please read my entire comment before pinging me, thank you. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@RememberOrwell So we should make all editors administrators since denying non-admins access to the admin tools is assuming bad faith? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:13, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

It seems the LLM tools have come a long way and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist/W55 our policies haven't.

Is it a mod or admin who has intentionally made it difficult for someone, e.g. me, to, e.g. translate Stalinon from French to English. In any case, it's based on an assumption of bad faith that the system was changed to prevent ALL users from accessing a feature to prevent potential misuse.

Wondering if trying dphilipov/wiki-translate (https://github.com/dphilipov/wiki-translate) will help.

Hereby requesting access to the tool that's been disabled. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello? RememberOrwell (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

What is happening technically that breaks (disappears) all the citations? Workarounds other than a manual process that seems more laborious than the creation of the original citations in the first place? RememberOrwell (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain what you're seeing? WP:CX is intended to preserve citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you not understand a particular part of "I see there's a CS1 translator module but I guess it's broken? Crippled? It's stated "all you need to do is copy the citation from the source and paste it into the en-wiki article, preview, fix any errors, and publish " - by this it's meant it has to be done citation by citation? Why*? Seems like intentional discouragement - a violation of WP:bite." ? Do I need to be more specific?

I also wrote,"I thought the citations copied over, and it looked like they would, but after saving, noticed they didn't, at all. Ugh." Do I need to be more specific?

I identified the issue was when I tried to translate Stalinon from French to English. You can see the French version and you can see my work at Draft:Stalinon and Stalinon. Do I need to be more specific? Than the contributor note there? RememberOrwell (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

In other words, I'm asking: What is happening technically that breaks (disappears) all the citations, when I follow the 8 steps detailed in the OP? RememberOrwell (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, @RememberOrwell, I need you to be more specific. For example: you say "I started with a machine translation", but what exactly did you do? Which website or tool did you use? Did you copy/paste wikitext code into it, or did you copy/paste the whole URL in, or what? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

You claim there's a workaround other than a manual process that seems more laborious than the creation of the original citations in the first place. I need you to document it if it exists. RememberOrwell (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@RememberOrwell, please provide a link to that alleged claim. I'm not sure what workarounds are functional these days, and I don't remember saying anything about one.

What I'm offering here is my help to figure out what went wrong when you used machine translation on that article. I can't do that when you won't tell me what you actually did. "I started with a machine translation" isn't enough information to figure out how you ended up with empty ref tags. Something like "I opened the article in the visual editor, selected a paragraph, and used the ExampleTranslation Plug-In to translate it" might be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

"all you need to do is copy the citation from the source and paste it into the en-wiki article, preview, fix any errors, and publish " - I say this doesn't work. I read "WP:CX is intended to preserve citations." as implying it does. edit of revision where I tried. I say this shows it doesn't work. That was all the citations from the source. Fixing the errors seems un- do-able. Past 1st cite, errors are gibberish. Hidden comment (to save space) showing what I see: (see source) RememberOrwell (talk) 03:29, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

You weren't using WP:CX in that edit. Software that you're not using isn't going to do anything for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

So you bringing it up just derailed the conversation. RememberOrwell (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I have finally tracked down this "all you need to do" line to its origin in Wikipedia:Translation#Citation templates, and clarified that if you want the citation template to be auto-translated on this wiki, then you have to actually copy the wikitext for the citation (the bits beginning <ref>{{Ouvrage|prénom1=Corinne..., not the little blue clicky number in the reader view or the visual editor). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

"all you need to do is copy the citation (i.e., the full wikitext code for the template, not the little blue clicky number itself) from the source article and paste it into the en-wiki article, preview, fix any errors, and publish." would be good advice if it worked when a bunch of citations are copied. But as my earlier comment below noted - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#c-RememberOrwell-20260714034900-WhatamIdoing-20260714013700 - it doesn't. You seem to have incorrectly assumed that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Stalinon&oldid=1362101946 was made using an external website, without looking at it. It wasn't. I did take the full wikitext code for the templates and paste 'em into the en-wiki article. Got hot garbage.

I urge you to accept that I'm not wanting help using a severely crippled tool. I'm wanting a tool that isn't severely crippled. RememberOrwell (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, let me ask this a different way:

• The French original contains this wikitext code:
  • Le Stalinon est conçu au début des années 1950 comme traitement contre la [[furonculose]]. La Stannomaltine, une spécialité pharmaceutique à base d'étain et d'oxyde d'étain<ref name=":2">{{Article|langue=|auteur1=Bonah Christian|auteur2=Gaudillière Jean-Paul|titre=Faute, accident ou risque iatrogène ? La régulation des événements indésirables du médicament à l'aune des affaires Stalinon et Distilbène|périodique=Revue française des affaires sociales|date=2007|issn=|lire en ligne=https://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-des-affaires-sociales-2007-3.htm-page-123.htm|pages=123-151}}</ref>
• The English draft contains this wikitext code:
  • Stalinon was designed in the early 1950s as a treatment for furunculosis. Stannomaltine, a pharmaceutical specialty based on tin and tin oxide<ref name=":2" />

If you actually copied the full wikitext code for the ref and the citation template from the French source article and pasted it into the English draft, then why does the English draft not contain the wikitext code? It only says <ref name=":2" /> without any of the {{Article|langue=|auteur1=Bonah Christian... bits. This is what I would expect to see if you copy/pasted the little blue clicky number instead of the wikitext code. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Umm...

The English draft I linked to contains this wikitext code:

<ref name=":2">{{Article|langue=|auteur1=Bonah Christian|auteur2=Gaudillière Jean-Paul|titre=Faute, accident ou risque iatrogène ? ....|pages=123-151}}</ref>

I don't know why you didn't use the link I provided and specifically directed you to, just above, but if you had, you'd see that code there. But doesn't matter.

What matters is whether you can show us a way to use a tool that isn't severely crippled, or just show us that you can. With steps or a screen recording. If so, great, but I don't think you can -- because such a tool isn't available. RememberOrwell (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

In this comment, you directed me to this version of the English draft. That version, which was created in the visual editor, does not contain the wikitext code for the Bonah source. Have a look at the wikitext code for that version yourself.

If the visual editor is randomly deleting sources that you actually put into an article, that really does matter, and for more purposes than translation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Nope. You keep on with this derailing question: "why does the English draft not contain the wikitext code?" I don't care if it does (or not). This is all more derailing. And it snubs : What matters is whether you can show us a way to use a tool that isn't severely crippled, or just show us that you can. With steps or a screen recording. If so, great, but I don't think you can -- because such a tool isn't available. What I'm wanting isn't what you're offering. What I'm wanting is help to (figure out how to) use machine translation on articles (e.g. Stalinon) in a way that is not less efficient than using the tool if it wasn't crippled would be. I see no need for what you're offering. RememberOrwell (talk) 06:59, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like you really, really, really don't care if refs are randomly being deleted from your articles.

Just so you know, if someone complains that your articles are unsourced, or if someone else gets bitten by this bug, I'm going to tell them that the reason the possible bug wasn't identified and fixed already is because you insisted that randomly removing refs from articles is unimportant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. I did no such thing. Please stop. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

You've repeatedly refused to answer the questions that are necessary to determine how your first draft came to have no valid refs in it. When I ask for the information needed to file a bug report, you refuse to answer the questions and say that it's "just more derailing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I started with a machine translation from the page on French 'pedia, in other words, one performed by my browser's built-in translation feature. As I said earlier I "used an AI I don't recall to translate it". And, I just tried to retrace my steps and discovered this add'l info I am sharing with you about the AI I used. Don't recall what browser I was using at the time. But if there's any browser that results in a page that can be copied and saved with valid refs, I'd love to know; I'll use that. So, "you insisted that randomly removing refs from articles is unimportant" - is utterly backwards. RememberOrwell (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

See Draft:StalinonTest, in particular the screenshot within it. RememberOrwell (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Big picture: This is just more derailing. What I'm wanting isn't what you're offering. What I'm wanting is help to (figure out how to) use machine translation on articles (e.g. Stalinon) in a way that is not less efficient than using the tool if it wasn't crippled would be. I see no need for what you're offering. RememberOrwell (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

It looks like what you ran into is that we can't automatically translate fr:Modèle:Article like we can fr:Modèle:Ouvrage because "Article" is also an English word and Template:Article is used for a different purpose so it's not available for citation auto-translation. For that particular template, you'd need to change the citations to use Template:Cite journal/French or Template:Cite news/French (it's not clear to me which is correct; both claim to correspond). Anomie⚔ 11:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

In an early edit comment, I wrote, "If the references (which I see will need fixing) can be moved over, I want to proceed." I don't see how figuring out what went wrong when I used machine translation on that article is going to help when the admins comments and actions indicate they're dead set on intentionally not fixing the problem and shutting down discussion of doing so. No point proceeding. You say I won't tell you what I actually did. Let's say https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Stalinon&oldid=1362101946 was, to the best of my recollection, the result of "I opened the article in the visual editor, selected the whole article, and used an AI I don't recall to translate it" and pasted the translation, commented " Machine translation from page on french 'pedia I'm about to refine to proper English" and saved. Seems I'm telling you what you already knew. So what's the point? RememberOrwell (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia's templates (all of them) are local to each wiki. External websites (e.g., DeepL Translator, chatbots, Google Translate) have no idea what to do with them. You're lucky that it even maintained the HTML description, which is why you got back a little blue clicky number instead of plain old text in the form of [1].

If you'd been using WP:CX, you'd get these benefits:

• Most links would be linked to the correct article at the new language's Wikipedia. For example, in the first sentence of the French article has a link to w:fr:Staphylococcus, and it would have correctly linked to the English Wikipedia's Staphylococcus article.
• Most templates, including all the main CS1-style templates, would not just exist, but 'translate' the parameters. The French Wikipedia's {{Ouvrage|prénom1=Corinne... would become the English Wikipedia's {{Cite book|first=Corinne... with a simple click.
• Formatting is preserved. Some machine translation websites can do most of it, especially if you copy/paste from the visual editor instead of from the ordinary reader's view; however, CX can do almost 100% of it.

What you can't get in CX at this particular wiki is built-in machine translation. I think the community should change that, but in the meantime, have you considered to combining CX's features with copy/pasting each section at a time to your favorite machine translation tool? Given a paragraph of "blah blah blah blah", you could click on the original (full text of the paragraph, plus links and templates), then copy just the "blah blah blah blah" part (leaving the 'translated' citation in place), run it through machine translation, and paste the results in just before the little blue clicky number. It's a bit slower, but you would get your refs.

You could even start the page with just the formatted refs and no other content, and then fill the paragraphs back in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

"What you can't get in CX at this particular wiki is built-in machine translation. I think the community should change that". Glad to hear that.

I urge you to accept that I'm not wanting help using a severely crippled tool. I'm wanting a tool that isn't severely crippled. And disgusted at the prospect of further - and by my actual attempts at - use of one that is. " It's a bit slower" - not seeing that. As I said, with the LLM translation features disabled, the Wikipedia:Content translation tool is worse than useless. It's user-hostile. I'm already many wasted hours behind and many other editors are countless more hours behind because of this ongoing crippling of the tool, IMO. "You could even start the page with just the formatted refs and no other content, and then fill the paragraphs back in" - not seeing that either - and if it did sort of "work", not seeing it as anything but user-hostile.

It feels important to reiterate: I offered two options, one of this was If rehabilitating the tools is mostly opposed, the tool should be disabled/deprecated. It's disturbing to see it ignored.

Admins, by ignoring even that option, are showing they don't value and are happy to squander editor time and intentionally frustrate editors en masse. I don't agree with, but can respect those arguing against going with the other option, which at least can be defended by arguing that it's better to block machine translation edits than improve upon them. Those (not you) arguing that it's OK to squander editor time and intentionally frustrate editors en masse with an 'it's not a WP:AGF violation' argument ... I don't have the words... RememberOrwell (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

To add to WhatamIdoing‘s comment, if the “Copy original content” option is used and the text is manually translated without removing the citation, the citation should copy over, provided the reference template exists in both languages. We’d be happy to enable machine translations, but it’s a community decision. The Wishlist mentioned in the conversion is being reviewed, and this ticket has been created. UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@UOzurumba (WMF), I think the question is "could machine translation be enabled for specific editors" (a technical question), not "could machine translation be enabled at all" (as you note, a community one). In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Machine translation can theoretically be enabled for specific editors. It might require a bit of technical work, but I believe it would be small. However, whether to allow such a thing to happen is a community decision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering, enabling machine translation for specific editors would require further development or technical work. We currently have a per-wiki configuration option. As WhatamIdoing said, if there is consensus to allow it, the Language and Product Localization team can consider doing the technical work. UOzurumba (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Umm, how can that be true? I said earlier, "Access to the whole tool is already restricted to certain groups." In particular, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/CXT#c-Xaosflux-2016-07-31T04:27:00.000Z-Lower/Change_the_5000-Edit_Bar? (already linked to earlier in this discussion) was closed by xaosflux it was restricted to the extendedconfirmed group. I presume it still is, so if machine translation was enabled today, which would require no "further development or technical work", it would re-enable machine translation, but only for everyone with extendedconfirmed. If it was then restricted to admins, it would be available to just that group of editors. If I'm wrong, where is the error in this? RememberOrwell (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello? RememberOrwell (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Last I heard, restricting access to the whole tool was done via Special:AbuseFilter, by preventing people from saving finished translated pages into the mainspace. That method cannot be used to restrict access to buttons inside the CX tool.

If we wanted to have a system in which:

• Wikipedia:Extended confirmed editors can use the CX tool without machine translation, and
• a new user right – maybe we call it "authorized machine translation user" – meant that some editors could use the CX tool with machine translation

then that new user right has to be created, and the CX tool has to be adjusted to pay attention to it internally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

To my eye, the above (if anything) confirms that machine translation could be enabled today, in a way which would require no "further development or technical work". Reiterating that there's a way that would require more work doesn't change that. RememberOrwell (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm quite sure there's a way. Access to the whole tool is already restricted to certain groups. Copyable code, surely would get the job done, if nothing simpler. How was it taken away, exactly? RememberOrwell (talk) 07:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe the initial approach was an WP:ABUSEFILTER that refused to save translated pages in the mainspace. I believe that the configuration has changed since then. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The current status of the translation tools is harmful. The process is terrible, as my experience and the discussion thereof shows. Who is interested in improving it? Bold enough not to bury their head in the sand? to make or find and document or de-cripple the tool(s) available? RememberOrwell (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, so let's do that, for love of the encyclopedia and its many willing, experienced bilingual editors.--Carwil (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there is any way to grant individual contributors access to the machine-translation aspect of the tool. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

Continuation of ANI Discussion About MFD Relisting

There have been some issues raised at a discussion at WP:ANI about relisting of MFD discussions, and the discussion there seems to be winding down because maybe WP:ANI action is not required. I posted my questions a few hours ago to the MFD talk page, but I now see that it is not an active talk page, so I will mark these questions, which were not answered yet, as moved to VPP.

The original issue was that an MFD had been open for a week, and an editor relisted it, and another editor reverted the relisting, and the original editor objected, at WP:ANI. The conclusion appeared to be that the last time there was a discussion of whether MFD discussions may sometimes be relisted as in 2016, and an RFC concluded that relisting is still an option for MFD. There aren't very many MFDs at any given time, so that all of the MFD discussions are available on a single board, MFD. At least one editor objects to the relisting of MFD discussions because it rearranges the paperwork. At least one editor thinks that relisting of MFD discussions is sometimes useful because it rearranges the paperwork.

So I will ask here:

• Should deletion discussions at MFD sometimes be relisted? There has been an RFC which said that MFD discussions may sometimes be relisted, so if there is a view that consensus has changed, is a new RFC warranted?
• Should non-administrators be permitted to relist MFD discussions as a non-administrative closure?
• Should the editor who relists an MFD discussion be expected to provide a comment explaining why they have relisted the discussion?
• Should non-administrators be permitted to revert the relisting of MFD discussions? If so, when and why?

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The answer to all of your questions is that MfD should not be treated any differently than any other XfD. Creating bespoke rules makes everything more confusing and there is no good reason for it. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

+1. Allow relisting. MFD closers shouldn't need to learn different rules about relisting than the other XFD venues. If a discussion has low participation or could benefit from more discussion, and hasn't already been relisted, then relisting is a standard and helpful tool in the toolbox. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

When all the discussions fit comfortably on a single page, relists are just needless paper-pushing, which is why they're not the norm at MfD, DRV, or MRV. MfD is different from the other XfDs because it doesn't use daily log pages. I disagree with the 2016 RfC (which I wasn't aware of until a few days ago) and would say as much if someone decides to start a new RfC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

While I take Voorts' point about consistency across processes, we do already use different layouts/structures for them, and subject nominations to a different set of deletion reasons. I guess I'm just not sure what the function of relisting is when there are only three nominations across the entire process. For reference, here's what MfD looked like on today's date in 2016, when that RfC took place, and here it is today. 62 nominations vs. 3 nominations. Now, 3 is low even by today's standard, but we haven't been anywhere near 62 in a long time, because drafts now have an automatic expiration date that they did not back then. To be clear, I don't think relisting hurts anything, either, but I just don't understand. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree that maybe this relist wasn't particularly necessary, but I don't think that it hurt anything. I think reverting it was even less necessary. People shouldn't be getting verklempt over a single relist. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:45, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I asked four questions. I will summarize what I think is being said:

1. Should MFD discussions sometimes be relisted? This is the main question. The 2016 RFC said that MFD discussions are no different from other deletion discussions and may be relisted. There are reasonable arguments that consensus has changed and a new RFC may be in order.

2. Can non-administrators relist MFD discussions? I think that the answer is that this depends on whether MFDs may sometimes be relisted. Otherwise, we do occasionally see non-administrative closes at MFD, and a relist is a closing action.

3. Should a comment be provided when relisting an MFD discussion? First, this depends on whether MFDs may sometimes be relisted. Second, in my opinion, if MFD discussions should sometimes be relisted, a comment should be provided. I agree that comment-free relistings at MFD are not helpful.

4. Should non-administrators be permitted to revert the relisting of MFD discussions? This was the original topic of the ANI report, but has not been addressed. I think that the answer is an unambiguous no, but I haven't researched whether there are non-admin reverts of relistings at AFD, TFD, or CFD.

It probably doesn't matter that MFD is like AFD in one respect in which they differ from TFD and CFD. Each AFD and MFD discussion is its own page in project space, while the daily logs are the unit pages in TFD and CFD.

Should we have a new RFC on question 1? If not, do we need to address questions 2, 3, and 4?

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

As a non-contributor to MfD who has read this thread, my answers to your questions are:

1. MfD discussions may be relisted but most often probably shouldn't be, because it achieves little. There may be exceptions to the general rule where a relisting is beneficial so it would be counterproductive to prohibit these.
2. Yes. Everybody may relist a discussion, but in most cases nobody should, per the answer to question 1. For the exceptions to the general rule it makes no difference whether the person relisting is or is not an admin.
3. It depends. If it's unclear why a discussion is being relisted it should be accompanied by a comment, if it is clear then a comment is neither required nor prohibited.
4. No. If someone is relisting inappropriately this is a user conduct issue that should be dealt with as a user conduct issue. I can think of only three reasons why a discussion might be inappropriately relisted and in neither situation does reverting the relisting help:
   • If discussion didn't need relisting because consensus was already clear, then just close the discussion according to that consensus. There is no minimum time between relisting and closing a discussion.
   • If consensus was not clear but discussion was ongoing, then the relisting might have been disruptive to that discussion but unrelisting will be at least equally disruptive. One disruptive event is better than two so just leave it be.
   • If consensus was not clear but discussion was not ongoing, just leave it be. Either the relisting will attract more input (in which case everybody wins) or it won't (in which case nobody loses).

In all cases though, if a relisting breaks any incoming links, create some sort of pointer or redirect so that people following them can find where the discussion now is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:49, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: MfD notices target a discussion subpage (as opposed to dates and anchors at RfD) similar to AfD. Thus—when a transclusion of an MfD subpage moves within the list on the main MfD page, no incoming links are broken and nothing needs to be altered in that regard. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:21, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this, also as someone who rarely participates in MFD but is a regular at other XFD venues. My one amendment is that relisting comments should perhaps be more strongly encouraged at MFD than at similar venues. They should not be required but if the norm is to generally not relist, a brief explanation will be especially helpful. In one sense, this is the same approach that should be taken with all relistings—when the reason to relist is non-obvious, an explanation should be provided. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:27, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Broadly agree with Extraordinary Writ, Rhododendrites, and Thryduulf. At such a small venue the main effect of relisting isn't to encourage further participation. MfD discussions are rarely poorly attended, and rearranging the order of discussions is not a fruitful way of pursuing that end anyway since old discussions aren't forgotten about. Relisting mainly functions to discourage closure for another week. That is generally most helpful where new information has arisen later in the discussion period that is likely to change participants' minds. I think in that instance a comment will always be useful. J947 ‡ ^edits 00:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Granted, it is often not the case in practice, but a relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined, without necessarily waiting for another seven days (WP:RELIST). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

MFD is qualitatively different from every other deletion venue (unless you count DRV) in that it doesn't have daily subpages, so moving discussions around doesn't place them on a better-attended page. That's the sole benefit of relisting. With that gone, it's all downside. —Cryptic 00:54, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I am going to defend relisting at MfD for several reasons:

• Generality - After 7 days, relisting serves the purpose of bringing less-attended discussions, where consensus has yet to be achieved, back to prominence at the top of the page. Many times well-attended or complicated discussions tend to languish at the bottom of the list, despite having achieved a full or rough consensus. Separating these two major archetypes of discussions makes the ones that need attention more likely to get it, especially from contributors more familiar with other deletion venues. Relisting discussions also gives them a non-mandatory (relisted discussions may be closed at any time if a clear consensus develops as I quote from guidance to another comment above) additional 7-day time-buffer of sorts to allow a consensus to naturally develop without the discussion appearing in need of expedited closure in the old business section. Set time periods allow for a deeper, fuller consensus to develop (as opposed to a constant under-the-wire environment where, for example, a sudden change in direction prevails in a tight case where it otherwise would not have).
• Parity with other venues - Driving more participation and expanding ease-of-access for the maximum possible userbase is a boon in general. Relisting is an expected feature of deletion venues; the average user may assume that the old business section consists of discussions ready for closure and wanting of one. This misconception is avoided if a discussion is at the top of the list. Of special note, users also should not be treated poorly or chided if they attempt to relist something in good faith because of such reasonable expectations.
• Timelessness of venue - Whether or not MfD is experiencing a slump or boom, having a functioning relisting system makes the venue future-proof. The architecture of relisting (being slightly different from other venues and less automated) may otherwise decay and be unready when warranted. Take {{mfd relist}} and User talk:Legobot/2025#Miscellany for Deletion relisting which show an example of such deterioration. Right now, relists must be done manually.
• Non-adminstrator relists and comment-free relists - Non-administrators who are (WP:NACD) experienced[,] ... uninvolved[,] ... [and] registered (WP:NADC) may close (or relist) ... discussions (WP:NACD). Relisting is a determination of non-consensus (i.e. that consensus has yet to be achieved). Non-administrators regularly relist discussions at other venues; it should be no different at MfD. It is less explicitly officially documented, but comment-free relists are standard (and perhaps preferred) practice when it comes to relisting. This should also not be any different at MfD than any other venue. The relisting comment field exists for the following reason:

  In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice. When relisting for a third (or further) time, or when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters, the relisting editor should explain why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result (WP:RELIST).

More often than not, on the first (especially the first) or second relist, it is clear that the discussion is being relisted because consensus is (likely) split in different directions (i.e. yet to be achieved due to lack of agreement) and 'no consensus' closure is not yet appropriate. If there is a special circumstance, or something to note, then a relisting comment would certainly be appropriate.

That just about encapsulates my thoughts on the matter (though I may have forgotten some sentiments and will post again later if that proves to be the case).— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Mackensen made an argument regarding relisting comments being generally non-optimal in the discussion that this one stemmed from, which I elude to but do not explain in depth. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I would draw your attention to my fourth bullet point just above, with the hope of perhaps changing your opinion in regard to relisting comments. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:36, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Generality - After 7 days, relisting serves the purpose of bringing less-attended discussions, where consensus has yet to be achieved, back to prominence at the top of the page

Undesirable, if there is no point in the relisting except to move it back to the top. The pointlessness of the relisting is evident in the lack of relisting comment on why it is being relisted. Moving an MfD discussion back to the top does not get it fresh eyes, but tricks the few regulars, who already saw it, already commented or already ignored it, in to thinking that there is a new nomination.

Godsy has many many good contributions at MfD, but sometimes exercises poor judgement. When challenged, he goes on an on, as previously, and refuses to concede a single point. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - If you don't know the gender of a user, you can use the singular they, which has been used since early modern English. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Given that relisting is presently allowed at MfD per the RfC that has been cited, only a new RfC can overturn the old consensus, not discussion at VPP. I see no reason to discuss further rather than just open an RfC, assuming that nobody is going to change their mind at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:22, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

“Allowed” is a weak defence. Relisting is normal at MfD, but pointless comment-free relisting is not. Only Godsy does it. I object to him doing pointless comment-free relisting. It does no good, and it does some harm. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

We all understand your position at this point. Your position is presently against cosnensus established by an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:52, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

If it's true that only one (1) person does this (e.g., over the course of several months or a whole year), is what that person does really the community's practice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not just one person. I'm fairly certain I've relisted discussions at MfD. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:39, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Relisting at MfD is normal and fine. But is it normal and fine to sporadically do comment-free pointless relisting, be told that your pointless comment-free relistings are a negative, to insist that it’s “allowed” by some guideline, and to insist on continuing? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Your view that comment-free relistings are inappropriate (especially in general) is a minority viewpoint (if not a vast minority viewpoint). It is overwhelmingly accepted that relists, on the first (or even second), have an inherent purpose that need not be spoken (or rather written) through a comment. I have expounded upon this at-length above. You are seemingly the only contributor that has a (at least major) problem with them, as evidenced here (aimed at others besides me). You have been a contributor at MfD for a long time and have done a lot of good work there. However, your viewpoint in this case does not overrule several well-documented discussion closes and guidelines etc. (again above) established through community consensus. Your view should not be conflated as more than that or be implied to be the view of the community. As far as sporadicity, I have periods of more or less activity, as do many contributors (appropriateness of relisting, however,—bar new community consensus—remains the same). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

My particular view relevant is that most of your (singular you) comment-free relists at MfD are completely worthless, and of negative impact to people who pay attention to the size of the backlog.

I’ve asked you to stop.

You don’t reply to the substance, but respond verbosely off topic, ad nauseam, to use your word choice.

- SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe nobody else thought that she needed to stop. Any editor can ask another editor to do anything. Sometimes the asking can be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I acknowledge this point. It is a relatively low level issue. My previous challenge was rebuffed, which is why I felt the revert was justified. And here we are, still with the question unanswered, “why do this relist?”. And I believe that “Because rules allow it” is not a reasonable answer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

I have started an RfC below. If you have already set forth your views in full in this discussion, I suggest distilling them into a concise !vote and referring editors to your comments above. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:06, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

RfC: MfD relists

Should comment-free relists be allowed at MfD? 02:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Deletion process, Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion and Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Background

• Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Archive 11#RfC: Should MfD relists be allowed or disallowed?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1228#SmokeyJoe - Relisting reversions at MfD and unwillingness to discuss
• See discussion above.

Survey re RfC: MfD relists

• WP:RELIST, which applies to all XfDs, states: "When relisting for a third (or further) time, or when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters, the relisting editor should explain why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result." Otherwise, a relisting comment is not required. I do not believe there is sufficient reason to treat MfD differently from other XfDs. We shouldn't create arbitrary exceptions to guidelines, particularly procedural ones. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Someone is repeatedly removing my !vote from here. Please stop it.

  Of course. The question is the wrong question. A better question is: What should be done when an editor repeatedly exercises bad judgement in relisting? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is a wiki. Many things are “allowed”, technically, even if not a good idea. Good judgement is required. People without good judgement should be less bold. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I moved your "!vote" below and responded to it there, where you also responded. This is the "yes" section in response to the survey, not a place for you to continue to make inappropriate comments about other editors. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. Comment-free relists are standard (and perhaps preferred) practice when it comes to relisting. This should not be any different at MfD than any other venue; bringing a discussion to the top of the list is a valuable action which has a net-positive affect on the deletion backlog by being an attention-drawing boon for the vast majority of contributors. The relisting comment field exists for the following reason:

  In general, a discussion should not be relisted more than twice. When relisting for a third (or further) time, or when relisting a discussion with a substantial number of commenters, the relisting editor should explain why they did not consider the current state of the discussion sufficient to determine a closure result (WP:RELIST).

More often than not, on the first (especially the first) or second relist, it is clear that the discussion is being relisted because consensus is (likely) split in different directions or the discussion is under-attended (i.e. consensus has yet to be achieved due to lack of agreement or participation) and 'no consensus' closure is not yet appropriate. Otherwise, a constant under-the-wire environment with no semi-firm time limits is fostered (which serves as an adversary to achieving natural, full consensus). If there is a special circumstance, or something to note, then a relisting comment is certainly appropriate. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:52, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yes. The question is whether they are permitted, and they should be permitted. Questions about when various types of relistings should encouraged or discouraged can be addressed later, after the current question is answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Yes. Whether they should be encouraged, discouraged or neither are separate questions but there is absolutely no reason to prohibit them. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Yes. MfD shouldn't be different from other venues in this regard. FaviFake (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Yes. As I said during the ANI discussion, comment-free relists are normal and speak for themselves. Mackensen (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Yes. Allow relisting. MFD closers shouldn't need to learn different rules about relisting than the other XFD venues. If a discussion has low participation or could benefit from more discussion, and hasn't already been relisted, then relisting is a standard and helpful tool in the toolbox. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Yes, there certainly are cases where a relisting does not need much of an explanation for itself. jolielover♥talk 13:40, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• Relisting is an unusual action at MfD. Like at DRV, discussions rarely suffer for attention. As such a comment explaining why a particular discussion does in fact warrant further participation is normally helpful. Prescribing a comment serves to discourage thoughtless and otherwise unhelpful relists. I know I have done such relists at MfD, erroneously thinking its situation the same as at any other venue. It is ineffective to inform every editor to fall under this common misapprehension individually. I do not find the argument that the same relisting considerations should apply to all deletion venues convincing. Encouraging unfruitful relists is counterproductive. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  What makes a relist helpful or unhelpful? Where do we draw that line? voorts (talk/contributions) 03:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I am currently drafting User:J947/Essays/When to relist? on that question. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it's reasonable to ask editors participating in this RfC to read a 700+ word (the page size tool doesn't count items in lists) essay. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:53, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Well I wasn't quite sure what you were getting at. I mean you do plenty of relists yourself; you don't need me to explain which relists are good or bad. (Although, for the sake of others, I'll summarise my position. It's a judgment call of how productive the relister expects the relist to be. Relists shift attention from new discussions to old discussions. Extensions of a discussion by a week or two are usually significantly less productive than the first week, but some discussions are complicated or important enough to warrant a RfC-like amount of time (that is, where there is no consensus or no clear consensus).) J947 ‡ ^edits 04:50, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify, an explanation should be required, not merely a comment. Comments like "final relist" and "keep or delete?" -- which pretend to be binding but are not -- are rarely useful. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:44, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• No. Per my comments above I don't think relisting an MfD is useful at all in the mine run of cases, so I suppose I'd support requiring the relister to explain their reasoning. But whether or not there's a comment is orthogonal to the more important question of when to relist in the first place, and I don't really understand why this RfC is framed around the former rather than the latter. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  When to relist is already covered by WP:RELIST. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:33, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• There is no point resisting the incredibly strong human urges for superficial order, symmetry, and conformity, as any such act of resistance is instinctively treated as an act of aggression. In any system that has awoken to a semblance of non-conformity or non-sameness, or to a however vacuously construed internal gap, any person who advocates for that gap not to be bridged is viewed as an enemy. Any individual insisting that the gap has always been there and exists for a reason is labeled a perpetrator of mental violence. Arguing that the structure is not inconsistent, but rather applying legitimate different treatment to different things, is considered even worse, because it implies the existence of multiple gaps and thereby doubles the perceived mental violence. Because a mass society cannot tolerate the cognitive friction of specialized, highly tuned mechanisms, these elite-orientated structures inevitably face a destructive regression to the mean once exposed to the uninitiated public. Since it is impossible to protect fragile internal functions from this homogenizing force, the system must survive by fabricating a flawless public veneer of absolute consistency and "fairness".—Alalch E. 19:30, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  User:Alalch E. : That paragraph is a philosophically interesting example of the use of language, because the individual phrases make semantic sense, but the overall paragraph has no semantic meaning. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  Read Cognitive inertia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  When the system stops being rational after all its finely-tuned "inconsistent” internal mechanisms are dismantled in succcessive confirmity campaigns, the iron law of oligarchy comes into full effect. —Alalch E. 19:42, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• I am generally opposed to relisting (at all venues), but I do not believe we should have special rules here. Relisting should be avoided if possible, and "relisting without comment" reflects poorly on the relister, but let us fix that elsewhere, not by making additional rules for one specific venue. —Kusma (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion re RfC: MfD relists

• This is, as previously, not the relevant question. It is a disruptive survey. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Your complaint above was that the relists were "pointless" and "comment-free". I apologize if that wasn't the issue you have with the relists. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, this is precisely the relevant question, as you yourself stated:

  The problem is comment-free relisting. All downside, no upside.

  Every question you pose is a red herring. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  voorts (talk/contributions) 02:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I hold that “comment-free” relisting is a problem. It has a number of problems. I acknowledge that it is widespread at other XfDs. It is not common at MfD. The only repeatedly comment-free relister at MfD is Godsy. I have explained the entirely of the problem to him, but he completely doesn’t get it. So, what to do? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can you please stop commenting on editor conduct. This is not the place to do so. I suggest leaving a brief, civil !vote above. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  No. This is precisely about one specific behaviour of one specific editor, since about ten years ago. They and you are responding with widespread generalities, and widespread generalising is evasion of the issue. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  No. This is a policy dispute, that has been going on for about ten years, that is largely between two users, and is compounded by the interaction between two users. I mediate article content disputes, and I instruct the editors to Comment on content, not contributors and Discuss edits, not editors. Those two instructions are the same, and are repeated because they need repeating. Often an article content dispute is compounded either by conduct or by conduct allegations. Often resolving the content dispute by focusing on content will alleviate the conduct. One of the two editors, User:SmokeyJoe, objects to content-free relistings, and has been reverting them for about ten years. The other editor, User:Godsy, reported the reverting at WP:ANI. User:voorts is trying to resolve the policy dispute by clarifying the policy by an RFC, and is asking about exactly what SmokeyJoe was objecting to. At this point, objecting to the resolution of the policy dispute is bizarre. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  The main dispute is over an editor's judgement, in a relatively small matter. Incidentally, I find I agree with that user's opinions on all other matters.

  I do not want your mediation.

  User:Voorts, who has recently been aggressively involved in these discussions, has unilaterally launched an RfC framed around the wrong question.

  I am very interested in J947's page User:J947/Essays/When to relist?, and I hope to contribute to it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I did not offer to mediate. I am not neutral.

  You say that the question is the wrong question. You were complaining about content-free relistings at MFD, so the RFC is about content-free relistings at MFD. What is the right question?

  If you think that the question should be about Godsy's judgment in relisting MFDs, why don't you start a discussion about what you see as the real issue? (Perhaps because you know that you are in the minority?) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  User:Robert McClenon, there are threads in multi places, and many questions that are not important, so some good questions like this one can be hard to find.

  The first question, is whether this edit to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Userboxes/Apps was a good edit. In my opinion, it was not. The discussion was ready to close, and it belonged in the backlog. I thought my edit summary was not impolite. This is a question of judgment when relisting.

  The more general question that follows that I ask is: What is the point of relisting without comment (or reason), as in when it leaves others mystified as to why it was relisted.

  I hesitate, because I am not sure whether this is a general issue for relisting everywhere, or is particularly relevant for mfd.

  I have posted by thoughts at User talk:J947/Essays/When to relist?, and encourage interested others to read User:J947/Essays/When to relist?. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Of course. The question is the wrong question. A better question is: What should be done when an editor repeatedly exercises bad judgement in relisting? SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  The ANI discussion was archived without action. This is not the place to discuss editor conduct. I suggest you strike your statement. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:09, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  “Allowed” is also a bad choice of word. Comment-free relists should be discouraged. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  If we "discourage" it, that means we need to create exceptions, which would inevitably be based on personal preference. It should be all-or-nothing. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:16, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  We don’t need exhaustive rules and exceptions. When someone is told their contributions are negative, they should consider the feedback, not insist that there’s not a rule elsewhere disallowing what they like to do. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Final warning before I take this to ANI: this is not a conduct noticeboard. Stop making personal attacks. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• Pinging @Robert McClenon, @Cryptic, @Extraordinary Writ, @Godsy, @J947, @Mackensen, @Myceteae, @Novem Linguae, @Rhododendrites to this RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
• I am not sure having separate yes and no sections is the right format for this type of RFC. But probably too late to change that. Ah well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think you're right. @Voorts, I'm not sure why you chose this format, but the having separate support and oppose sections should really only be used when the quality of the arguments is unimportant, and when the options really are binary. In this case, my !vote is mu: I think it should be allowed but should not be common and should normally be explained by some other reason than just "eh, I just wanted more people to comment". There is no place in your format for my response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Now it's one survey section. Easy fix. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:05, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Generally: Relisting is a problem.

When someone is working on a backlog and they encounter something that's difficult to close, the following options are safe and easy and won't result in a long whiny complaint: (a) Ignoring that discussion and (b) Relisting that discussion.

Closing that discussion is more difficult and requires an investment of thought and work, and randomly, it gets quite needless amounts of stress from aggrieved editors. So over the years we've got into the habit of ignoring or relisting the difficult ones more and more frequently. I can absolutely see why.

But we're stretched too thin. We don't have the volunteer numbers now to process all these discussions. A relist used to be unusual, a second relist used to be remarkable. Now we're unsurprised to see three relists.

We've also got another problem which is the discussions that get no participation. Again, the people working on the backlog tend to relist. But that isn't always the right thing. Some discussions get no participation because we have too few volunteers and too many XFDs, in which case relisting might help. Others get no participation because nobody cares.

I think that where a discussion has had a reasonable amount of participation it should be closed rather than relisted. (If it looks difficult and you're one of those conflict-averse people, just write "No consensus".)

I think that where a discussion hasn't had much participation it should get relisted once. If it gets near-zero participation a second time, then we ought to close it without result.

And I think that by following those principles we would use our volunteer time more productively.—S Marshall T/C 09:57, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:POPULATED

Does a Tehsil meet Populated, legally recognized places for notability, or does the Tehsil need to establish notability itself? It seems somewhere below a county and above a municipality level of division, with the Districts they are divided from being the equivalent of a county. I think it's attempting to inherit notability. Jerod Lycett (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I suggest asking this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). Note, however, that there has been a long running and contentious debate, spread over many sections on that page, about what "legally recognized" means, and how it applies outside the United States. I thought an RfC was about to open, but, not quite yet. Donald Albury 20:59, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I was only focused on getting the guideline clarified for Tehsil (hence asking here where changes are made in the hopes that some level of division was determined through consensus), but it seems the phrase itself is what is problematic. I'll edit this to expand when I have time tomorrow. Jerod Lycett (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Per this definition, "It is a subdistrict within a district including the designated populated place that serves as its administrative centre, with possible additional towns, and usually a number of villages.", Tehsils are clearly notable under WP:POPULATED. Looking over the list, we have units from 5,400 to 572,000 people. I think all are intrinsically notable per policy.-- Carwil (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

If they serve an actual administrative function, there should be enough sources on administration to have them pass GNG. CMD (talk) 01:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

That standard would constitute a complete removal of WP:NGEO. Jahaza (talk) 02:56, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

How does meeting GNG constitute a complete removal of NGEO? CMD (talk) 03:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Judging at the one I looked at, these probably pass WP:GNG. Mangoe (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

RfC: NPOL & sub-national leaders of major political parties

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is overwhelming consensus against WP:NPOL covering sub-national party leaders. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 10:16, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

---

Should sub-national leaders of major political parties (e.g., the chair of a U.S. Democratic or Republican state party) be covered by WP:NPOL? 20:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

See RFCBEFORE discussion.

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:40, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Survey (NPOL)

• No The purpose of NPOL is to ensure that we have complete coverage of national and sub-national elected officials legislators, judges, and executive officials. State or province-wide party leadership should continue to be judged by GNG/NBASIC. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:38, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just a note, NPOL does not mention "elected", only "legislative bodies". A recent example is Darline Graham who was not elected but is serving in the US legislature. I think the point of NPOL is those who represent and can make laws impacting their constituents at the state or national level, regardless of party affiliation (i.e. their decisions impact the represented group, not just the party). S0091 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Clarified. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• No. These are often not public-facing and public-elected so they do not have the automatic visibility of national and subnational leaders. They can continue to be covered by GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No severely lacks a global view of various political systems. many which are not democratic much less a two-party systems and gets us into the quagmire of what is a "leader" and a "major party". S0091 (talk) 21:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No They usually sit in meetings and talk people to death. Not public enough. GNG is enough. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No. I agree with voorts, David Eppstein, S0091, and Yesterday. These individuals are often obscure even within their own state. There is no presumption of notability and they should be held to GNG. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No NPOL is too broad as it is. Covering people who do not make law nor governmental decision is exccessive. If they are truly notable, they will meet WP:GNG. If their position is notable, the position can have its own article with list of position holders. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No per voorts, David Eppstein, S0091, and Yesterday. Many party leaders will meet GNG and there is no reason to presume notability for holding this party office (especially for someone who is temporary). --Enos733 (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No, unless evidence is presented that these people overwhelmingly pass WP:BASIC, including historically and globally. pburka (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• No. I haven't seen an articulation of what problem is being solved here. Are we lacking meaningful content because there are many state party leaders who have not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Davidwbaker (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• No I'd add that an implicit point of NPOL (which applies equally to members of the judiciary) is that it accords notability because of the universal (jurisdictional) power vested in persons within specific offices; something clearly absent in the role of a political party chair. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• No I have to agree with everyone else, this seems unclear and unnecessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:44, 22 July 2026 (UTC)
• No NPOL is fine the way it is and I agree that most people covered under this guideline would be incredibly obscure. Lynch44 13:58, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (NPOL)

• Is this going to be WP:SNOW or supersnow? Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Waiting for the 24 hour mark to snow it. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:24, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

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

'Official website' in infobox for deceased individuals

I first noticed this in relation to the Charlie Kirk biography, but it seems likely that the same issue must arise elsewhere. The documentation for template:Infobox person states "Official website only", and Wikipedia:External links states the following:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.

2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Given that Kirk is deceased, he clearly is no longer in control of the website linked (www.charliekirk.com [1]), and the website now contains significant content on topics that have arisen since his death. I raised this at Talk:Charlie Kirk [2], and there has been some rather inconclusive discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links [3], but nothing concrete arrived at, and accordingly I'd like to know how the broader community thinks such situations should be dealt with. In my opinion, we seem to need some form of clarification of general policy on this matter, since it appears that such 'official' links in infoboxes for the deceased aren't unusual. If this is actually the case, and this is seen as acceptable, I think we should at least be giving some guidance as to when such treatment is conmsidered appropriate and then making it clear to readers on what basis the website is provided. As of now, practice appears to be running in contradiction to a policy that seems unambiguous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Individuals' estates can control their intellectual property/brand after death. I don't see the issue with linking to an official website of a deceased person. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:08, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I've been involved in the discussion at the Kirk talk page. I agree with voorts that we should normally assume that these websites continue to be controlled by the deceased's estate, and that they can remain "official" for our purposes under most circumstances. I would carve out an exception for the (probably rare) instances where we have reliable sourcing that the website has been taken over after the death, by some party that is no longer friendly to the deceased, and might be taking the website in directions that would be contrary to the deceased's wishes. I wouldn't mind clarifying that exception in the policy, but I do regard it as something that would be unusual. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that 'continue to be controlled by the deceased's estate' is really a thing, legally. A deceased persons estate is the property they owned. It isn't a legal entity. Such property will be passed on to others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

An estate is absolutely a legal entity. Estates can sue and be sued. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

And normally the estate is established by the person's will, so it will be assigned to trusted surviving relatives. I do realize that there can be (rare) exceptions where, over time, ownership of the estate passes from one to another and eventually becomes at odds with the deceased person. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

See, for example, Estate of Jeffrey Epstein. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

How about we stay on topic? If 'estates' are relevant to this discussion at all, it is only if and when it can be shown that they are actually in control of the website in question. And even then, if that is the case for a specific website, shouldn't we be clarifying who is running the website? This is the issue I'm trying to get resolved in this discussion, and it really isn't helped by people invoking hypothetical 'estates', 'trusts' etc. We have a policy saying one thing. We appear to have articles applying something else. Why is it so difficult to discuss the issue directly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I am staying on topic. It is my view that we should allow external links to the official websites of deceased persons where those websites are run by their estates or some other relevant organization (e.g., if a musician's website is run by their label before and after death). An estate is usually "controlled by the subject" because it's created in line with their will. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that is where I would land as well. For well known public figures, it can be assumed official websites and the like will be run by the estate of that person unless shown otherwise. As the estate is setup by the person and acts as an extention of their will, im not even sure its really in conflict with the guideline. PackMecEng (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not going to respond further to unsourced commentary about hypothetical estates, and even more hypothetical commentary about the terms under which they might be administered. I started this discussion in the hope that a mismatch between policy and practice could be resolved, and as far as I'm concerned, debating about imagined legal entities has never been seen as an appropriate way to resolve anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

We're not debating about imagined legal entities. Can you please tone it down a notch? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this, but my thoughts center on the article being a biography about a person. Once that person dies, that individual ceases to control the content on the website. The estate may control the site, but the article is not about the estate. New content on the site won't be controlled by the subject of the article, and may even run counter to the intentions of the subject. I'd recommend removing the link from the infobox. Davidwbaker (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, a little spot survey shows that David Bowie, John Lennon, Michael Jackson, Prince, Jimi Hendrix, Amy Winehouse and George Michael all link to official sites in their infobox. Kurt Cobain and Elvis Presley do not (Elvis does seem to have a site of the sort we would link at [4] There is a kurtcobain.com but it doesn't appear to be run by anyone associated with him. One can choose to view that as a widespread error or an informal consensus, I suppose. Morwen (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

A quick look at the infobox websites from the bio's you linked suggests that many are strictly commercial enterprises, serving almost entirely as sales outlets. Is that the intended purpose of such links? I'd always assumed that the purpose of an 'official link' in a biography was to help readers find out more about the what subject has to say themselves, rather than as a link to a sales platform. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm guessing that most official websites of notable persons are (1) not actually maintained by that person and (2) designed to encourage readers to hand over money, such as by buying an album or a book, hiring someone for their services, or making a political contribution. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think that's generally true once you get beyond the very-small-business level. However, being directly maintained by a notable individual is far more work than being controlled by that individual. If you hire the person who does the maintaining, then you're still in control, even if all you do is occasionally glance over a few proposals or send a text message saying "I want you to put something like ____ on the site during my big speech next Saturday". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I would think a great many official websites for living individuals serve a commercial interest. It's a stretch to say that ladygaga.com or beyonce.com give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. The same policy provision also applies to brands and e-commerce sites like Amazon.com, where the official site has an explicitly commercial purpose. An official website seems to be a piece of basic information that is included by convention, regardless of the encyclopedic value of the site's content (barring certain restrictions, of course). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Is anyone willing to actually discuss the substantive issue here: that we have an unambiguous mismatch between a policy, which states that an 'official website' must be controlled by the article subject, and practice, which seems to completely disregard this requirement? Or is the consensus that we should ignore this, and hope it goes away? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I say we amend the guideline to include trusts or their estates. They were created by the person while alive for the express purpose of representing their interests after death. PackMecEng (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I assume we are going to need evidence that such 'trusts and estates' exist, and have been created for such purposes? Because so far, I've seen no evidence of any such trust or estate being in control of any of the 'official websites' for the articles discussed so far, never mind any evidence that they are representing any specific interests. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan links to "official sites" in the External links section and the first is the Reagan Foundation. Richard Nixon also has an "official sites" subsection in the External links and links separately to an official White House biography, the Nixon Library and Museum, and the Nixon Foundation. Jahaza (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Willem de Kooning doesn't have a link in the infobox, but links to the Willem de Kooning Foundation as the first of the External links. Jahaza (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Good. Meanwhile, for none of the examples so far discussed in this thread (Kirk, Bowie, Lennon, Jackson etc) has anyone provided evidence of a 'trust' or 'estate' operating under the terms proposed ('representing their interests after death'). Do you think it reasonable that including an 'official website' link in an infobox for a deceased individual should require such evidence or not? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Do you really think someone like Charlie Kirk didn't have a will? voorts (talk/contributions) 23:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd hope he did. I see no reason whatsoever to assume that he made provisions for any sort of 'trust' or whatever regarding his website, though with regard to Kirk, I suspect, looking at www.charliekirk.com/about-charlie-kirk, the website may well actually belong to Turning Point USA. This isn't just about Kirk though, and I don't think it is particularly helpful to get into specifics. The policy/practice mismatch is a general issue, and not a single-article one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Andy, I don't think people are ignoring the issue. It's just that they disagree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

If the issue isn't being ignored, where is a solution being offered? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

OK, I think it's clear that there won't be consensus for saying that we can only have links to websites when the person is still alive, so the question of a solution seems to me to come down to having some additional language to clarify when the website of a deceased person might not be allowed. If you were to propose some specific language for that purpose, I think other editors would be able to engage with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I think most people don't see what you characterize as a problem. Katzrockso (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

First of all, you brought up the purported purpose of official links, and in a manner that suggested this is relevant to interpreting their appropriateness in articles, so it is natural that people would respond. We're trying to get a handle on the scope of the issue, in service of understanding whether the policy is at odds with actual practice and, if so, what direction a solution would take. Provisionally, I agree with you that the practice appears to run afoul of the plain reading of one part of the guidance—controlled by the subject, which is defined per the piped links as an organization or corporation or a living or recently deceased person. Understanding how and why such links are actually used is helpful in determining whether there is an actual problem and identifying potential solutions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

There's a useful article here from the Brooklyn Rail that discusses artists foundations and how there are many different types of official foundations that might be set up to survive an artist and might help in assessing the lay of the land. Jahaza (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

If such foundations have been set up, it is clearly something we should take into account for a particular article. We'd need evidence first though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Do we have a process for verifying the ownership and control of purported official website of living subjects? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Not a general process, no. I'd assume that beyond looking for sources (i.e., the website being linked from WP:RS, and if in doubt maybe checking who the domain is registered too, though that can be problematic), we'd tend to assume that if the website linked isn't the subject's, they'd complain. Not 100% foolproof, but at least we know who the owner is supposed to be. In the situation we are discussing (i.e. deceased subjects), we can't just assume that some hypothetical foundation or whatever is in control. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Why not? Thats what we do now with most official websites. Assume the subject is in control. Also do you not think these trusts or foundations are like a real thing? You keep using terms like hypothetical, scare quotes, and saying its property and not a legal entity that make me not sure you fully understand what they are or how they operate. PackMecEng (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I say 'hypothetical' because people keep suggesting that a trust or foundation exists in relation to a specific deceased individual's website, without providing any evidence. As a general principle, Wikipedia requires verifiability, not vague claims about things that might possibly exist. And in any case, regardless of whether such a trust/foundation exists, it isn't the article subject, and policy as it stands says that the website must be controlled by the subject. Not by anyone or anything else. 'The subject'. Whom we can definitively say is not 'in control', being dead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I assume the vast majority of official websites are added unceremoniously. They are usually obvious and not the sort of thing one gives a lot of thought to needing to verify. In the (presumably rare) case that the official website is questioned, it is either removed or discussed. I think there should be some reason to question the ownership, or some other concern about the website itself, other than the person having died. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The reason to 'question the ownership' (or more relevant, 'control', since that is what policy specifies) for an infobox link for a dead person seems self evident. They can't be controlling it, which is a requirement for its inclusion, under policy. If you think this policy needs changing, fine. Make a proposal to change it. But please stop pretending the requirement doesn't exist. It does, and it is unambiguous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• My inclination is probably not in the infobox for deceased individuals (or individual officeholders who no longer hold that position and defunct corporations). I agree with Myceteae that these links are no longer controlled by the subject, and become disconnected with the subject. I have no problem with these links being in the "External Link" section, but I think they should be removed from the infobox. --Enos733 (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I agree with this. Once the person is deceased, they no longer have control/a say in how they want their "official website" to look, function, etc. Sure, they could possibly leave a note to their loved ones, friends, marketing team or whoever, instructing them to manage their website a particular way after their death, but there's no guarantee that the group will actually follow through with the dead person's requests. So I would support removing the "Website" parameter off the infoboxes of deceased individuals' biographies. Some1 (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  i have it on good authority that Jimi Hendrix's website is being run exactly as he specified in his will. :p Morwen (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the issue concerns using "official" to describe the link and that no one has seriously suggested removing the link. A website controlled by others cannot be official. Should editors monitor a website every month to determine whether its message still corresponds to those that the subject would have? Just provide the link and let readers work out if a legal entity set up by the subject is still running the site in accordance with the subject's wishes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

The infobox link isn't actually labelled 'official': it's the placement that is really the issue, since it's presence there implies some sort of official status that other websites don't have. And it appears that this implication is being exploited for commercial reasons: e.g. the Hendrix biography mentioned above has a link, despite Hendrix dying in 1970, long before websites were a thing. And as much as the Sony Corporation would no doubt like to represent themselves as trustees of Jimmy's legacy, I can't think of any good reason why we should be offering them free links for their products. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I See that Janis Joplin appears also to have had the foresight to provide for a website on her demise, which occurred the same year as Jimmy. Were they perhaps informed of future technology by a time traveller? Or do the Sony Corporation and whoever it is that runs janisjoplin.com (your guess is as good as mine) own Ouija boards, and allow 'control' from the beyond? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Obviously, a dead person's website isn't controlled by that person. So obviously, the considerations that led Wikipedians to say "Official website only" don't apply in the same way. Duh.

Separately, and this is probably just me: I loathe the use of "individuals" to mean "people". It's like saying "utilize" instead of "use": just needless syllables. Wikipedia's badly-written enough without calling a spade an earth-inverting horticultural implement.—S Marshall T/C 09:25, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

So how should Wikipedia be dealing with this situation? What should we do to rectify a badly-written policy that doesn't match what people are claiming is normal practice? Or is it the practice that is the problem, rather than the policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:10, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should update the documentation for Template:Infobox person to say "leave blank if the person is dead or long-term missing".—S Marshall T/C 12:33, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Yup, I'm coming around to much the same conclusion myself. I intentionally held off making any specific suggestions initially, in the hope that some sort of consensus might arise, but it seems there are really only two camps on this: those who take the policy at face value, and accordingly only consider an infobox appropriate for those who at least have the potential to control a website on the basis of not being dead, and those who would rather that mortality didn't come into it, and are happy for commercial enterprises, and/or trusts and foundations that may or may not exist, should be permitted to pretend that they are the living embodiment of the deceased. And no, I'm not going to apologise for sarcasm here, given the way people have trotted out arguments based solely on hypotheticals, while ignoring evidence that such links are being exploited for purposes other than that intended. Maybe we need an RfC on this, though as I see it, the status quo isn't really an option, given its unresolved and contradictory state. If anyone can offer actual suggestions for a policy change (or clarification, if they wish to see it that way) that permits infobox links for deceased individuals under appropriate circumstances, we can consider that, but first we'd need a suggestion regarding what is 'appropriate'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not a policy. PackMecEng (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Wikipedia:External links should be ignored? Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (which most definitely is policy) seems to suggest otherwise: e.g. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. Hard to reconcile that with e.g. the links in the Joplin or Hendrix infoboxes. Jimmy Hendrix isn't the Sony Corporation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Not what I said at all. You keep mis-stating what others are saying and why they are saying it and then saying its going against policy. WP:EL is not policy. PackMecEng (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I have just quoted Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which is policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

In my view, the guideline as it stands is appropriate and sufficiently clear. It should be applied to the Charlie Kirk page, which is to say that the link should be removed. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see any compelling reason we shouldn't link these websites. It seems useful to the reader to see what their estate, or family, or etc, present, for the same reason it did as when they were alive. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

As Dionysodorus and I agreed at Talk:Charlie Kirk, the guideline does not require removal. It says editors "should" add links to an official website, but it does not say that only official links are permitted, nor does it say that formerly-official links should/must be removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking a lot of this comes down to how we link to the website, as opposed to whether or not to link to it. I just looked at all the documentation for Template:Infobox person. (It has laughably many parameters, including things like whether to include inches in how tall someone is.) So, when we put such a url in the template, it gets displayed as "Website", not "official website", so readers are not exactly being told that the deceased person is still controlling the website, although we can certainly question whether that's implied. When I scroll way, way down, and find the instructions, however, it says: "Official website only. Unofficial websites should be placed under External links in the body of the article." It doesn't define "official" and "unofficial", and readers don't see those instructions. I'm asking myself if the official website of a living person becomes an unofficial website following that person's death, and it does not make sense to me to say that it does. For it to make that change, from official to unofficial, I would want to see reliable sourcing that tells me that the nature of the website has changed, as opposed to having Wikipedia make an automatic presumption of change. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Right after posting that, I realized that I should also look again at WP:ELOFFICIAL, where official and unofficial actually are defined. And I'm thinking that a significant part of the problem here is the choice of words there, that says: "is controlled by the subject", and how that bumps up against the nonsensical situation of a dead person "controlling" anything. That guideline section deals with other things besides persons (fan sites and such), where it makes sense to frame things in terms of the verb "control", but we get into a problem here. The guideline section already talks about situations where an "official" website has been hijacked. Perhaps some clarifying language needs to be added there, that addresses websites that continue to be faithful to what a person would have wanted, after that person has died and no longer controls the website. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the guideline says the website must be "official" and meet the other two criteria. The discussion of fansites is instructive. Not that a website run by the family/trust/estate/whatever is equivalent to a fansite, but the guidance is explicit in repeating the control criterion when addressing another situation where one might argue that a website has something close to "official" or authorized status. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Nope. The guideline doesn't say that an infobox is only allowed to have official links. Some infoboxes' /doc pages say that, but the guideline itself doesn't. The guideline itself only says that links in infoboxes have to be "appropriate": "include appropriate external links in an External links section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Well the part of the guideline that has caused all this discussion says: The official website should be included in infoboxes such as {{Infobox company}}, and by convention are listed first in the External links section. If it's being over-interpreted then that is what needs to be clarified. It also does explicitly define criteria to be considered "official", which are relevant if it's an exception to links that should normally be avoided, whether it appears in the infobox or § External links or both. These criteria would seem to be critical to the determination of appropriate and within an infobox, if applicable in the section you quoted. And the widespread practice and apparent interpretation, which is the other thing that's under discussion here, appears to be that we only put "official" websites in infoboxes and not other links like IMDb that are fine for § External links, and so again, if it's been misinterpreted, it's good that we are clarifying. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 01:36, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I have suggested at Talk:Charlie Kirk#'Official website' and YouTube channel that perhaps it might be appropriate to link to the archived version of the website, as it was at the time of Kirk's death. If it seems like a good idea, one possibility might be to change the guideline in such a way as to suggest that, in cases where a dead subject's website changes significantly after a person's death, it might in general be appropriate to link to the archived version rather than the current version. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with equating family or estate with fans at a fan site. For our purposes, fan sites resemble user-generated content. Any random person purporting to be a fan can change what it says at such sites. It normally will not be like that for the website of a dead person, where (if) the estate is closely watching that it remains faithful to that person's wishes.

As for using archive links, that's a worthwhile idea. But we should also consider when archives are out-of-date, while the current website is still controlled by people close to the deceased person's wishes, as well as when archives are difficult to load. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I can think of a whole platoon of special cases and what-ifs with that. It might well need some editorial judgment to decide the exact version we should link to. I'm saying that what works in Charlie Kirk's case won't necessarily generalize very well. In Charlie Kirk's case we have the exact date and time of his death, which helps. But people also die or vanish in less well documented circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I suppose we could write something like "In cases where the subject of the article is deceased, it may be appropriate to continue to include a live link to the subject's website if this has been maintained largely as it was at the time of the subject's death, but if the website has been substantially changed following the subject's death it may be appropriate to use an archived link to the website as it was when the subject died." That would cover the difficulties to which you refer, leaving appropriate room for editorial discretion. Dionysodorus (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm thinking along those lines. Maybe it needs some wordsmithing, but I think brainstorming along those lines might address Andy's concerns, and be able to get consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we are in the position to determine whether a website was "substantially changed." We have a hard enough time dealing with our own policies. As I stated upthread, I think the bigger concern is continuing to link to the website in the infobox. - Enos733 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

“But if reliable sources report that the website has been substantially changed following the subject's death […]”

I think for post-mortem removal of official links, the burden of proof has to be on the side of removal. Inclusion should be the status quo.

It is not notable to report that “XX’s website continues to be representative of XX”, and RS should not be expected to divert resources to report that kind of trivia.

But it is notable to report that “XX’s website does not continue to be representative of XX”, and when RS report that, we should remove the official link. Mikewem (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we should require reliable sources to determine whether the website has changed substantially or not: that would be absurd, since (as you say) this is not the kind of thing that reliable sources would discuss. Rather, I am suggesting that editors should exercise their judgement as to whether the website has changed substantially or not, and use the archived link if it has: in most cases this is likely to be obvious and uncontroversial, and if it is controversial in a given case it can be resolved through the normal consensus or dispute resolution processes.

It would be odd if we required reliable sources for such a purpose as this. We require reliable sources for content, but in general we make our own judgements about what content, sources and links are appropriate or inappropriate to include, precisely because reliable sources in their nature do not usually specify this for us. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I assume, then, that articles about people who died years before the internet age should not have website links in the infobox (e.g., Janis Joplin). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't think they should. In my view, the link in Janis Joplin's infobox should be removed (or, at least, should not be presented as an "official website", even if the website presents itself as such), since there is no sense in which it can be controlled by the singer herself, as WP:ELOFFICIAL requires. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:36, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

If someone has been dead for a very long time but had a web presence during their lifetime, following this approach, then it is probably reasonable to go ahead and remove these links, too. I suppose an exception would be if it has clearly been left largely untouched, functioning almost like an archive even if not, strictly speaking, an archived page. For example, I don't know what Aaliyah.com looked like in 2001. I suspect she had an official website before her death. This has a fairly modern look and feel, so a reasonable default assumption is that it has substantially changed, though I'm not sure I could prove it another editor disputed removing the site from her infobox. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

In 2001, it was apparently a fansite: https://web.archive.org/web/20010606214717/http://www.aaliyahonline.com/aaliyah.html. So in that particular case it never seems to have been run by the singer herself. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Question: Should we have removed the links from Britney Spears's infobox for the duration of her conservatorship? I don't think this is too tangential. This is a much more clear-cut case where the subject is not in control of their own website. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  I feel we should perhaps talk about the case of people who don't control their website because of mental or legal capacity in a separate discussion. It's relatively easy to think about for children or people who're in a coma or who've disappeared, but we don't want Wikipedians trying to diagnose people's mental health on the basis of news reports.—S Marshall T/C 21:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think, again, that would depend on whether or not whoever was running the website was acting in her interests. Part of my point above was that "control" means different things when we are talking about individual people, and the guideline wording may not currently get that right. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  In response to both replies above, I don't want to derail this focused conversation but I find these issues highly relevant and I don't think the determination is necessarily simple. In the case of Spears, she was quite explicitly and legally not in control of "official" communications. This requires no armchair "diagnosis" by Wikipedians. On the other hand, legally, this was considered to be "in her interest". The particulars surrounding Spears, as with Kirk or any other individual, may or may not generalize. As for children and people in comas, it's not obvious to me that these are easy, either. I don't want to get too in the weeds on other test cases but we should be considering the full scope of the guideline whether we decide to maintain the current wording or amend it to address deaths. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Under the rule as currently written, the link should generally go. The phrase "controlled by" is a link to WP:BLP. BLP has some rules for dead people but it cannot be stretched to indefinitely alive, like an estate or license holder may be. (There are probably some estates, or estate like orgs, that because of what they get up to may be independently notable but the article is not about the estate.). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers § Disclaimers by WMF not exempt?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No disclaimers § Disclaimers by WMF not exempt?. George Ho (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)