Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Template:Map

Ping ColdNerd, Asilvering, Win8x, Graeme Bartlett

I for one regret the speedy closure of this discussion, though I think the proposal was premature. IMO the new Temp Accounts have complicated anti-vandalism efforts on the part of those investigating and reporting suspected vandalism, as well as admins when responding to these reports, especially at AIV. FWIW, I think it would be a good thing if we had a community wide discussion on the impact of the new system, perhaps at WP:VPI, though it appears there is already one in progress at WP:VPW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem, by all means start whatever conversation you like. You, unlike this LTA, have the standing to do so. -- asilvering (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment at the discussion on VPW. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Wikipedia style and naming Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the templates in Category:Royal and noble family templates display

• A. Descriptive titles (like "The Princess Royal" or "The Dowager Princess of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg" or "The Countess of Carladès"
• B. Article titles (like "Anne, Princess Royal" or "Princess Benedikte of Denmark" or "Princess Gabriella, Countess of Carladès")

Fram (talk) 09:52, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(added later): Example of option A[2] vs example of option B[3]. Fram (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This started with some edits at Template:British royal family (but applies to the other templates in the category as well), and was discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 224#Royal family templates. @Katzrockso, Rutebega, Chipmunkdavis, Keivan.f, and GoodDay: all participants in the previous VPPR discussion. Fram (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support B. Fram (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• A – The styles used in alternative 'B' are irregular. Either use given and family names, or use titles, but don't create an artificial OR-ish mix-mash. The rules for article titles, which can produce some strange constructions, do not apply to prose or templates. There is no better a reason to reproduce 'Anne, Princess Royal,' in prose any more than we would reproduce some other kind of parenthetical disambiguation, e.g. Georgia (country). Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 10:00, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• (Summoned by bot) A. I agree with RGloucester — ☎ that that there is no need to combine title and name for the templates in this category it just the title works fine and that there is no obligation to do so under the rules for article titles as they do not apply to templates. GothicGolem29 (Talk) 13:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• A, and I'm somewhat confused by the question. To me this looks extremely obvious. We shouldn't use article titles because that's redundant to the, well, article title. Why on Earth would we repeat ourselves? A is the option that gives our readers new information.—S Marshall T/C 14:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @S Marshall: You have me completely confused now, perhaps my RfC question isn't clear? Why would we use articles titles in links? Because they are the most recognisable to people? In e.g. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, the template has links for The Duke of Edinburgh and for The Duke of Gloucester. Turns out that one is Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh and the other is Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Instead of "giving our readers new information", it actually gives "less" information and makes it harder for the non-initiated to know what the link is about. Fram (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We're clearly talking at cross purposes, yes. Probably not worth spending a lot of words clarifying, considering this is currently not unakin to a landslide.—S Marshall T/C 15:37, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I would like to hear your reasoning and what in the RfC question was leading you to that conclusion. It seemed obvious to me that the RfC is talking about the links to other articles on the template, there is no need to have or discuss the link to the article the template is already on. And so I don't see how your !vote has anything to do with the actual question or how it is a valid reason to choose A. Instead of giving new information, option A looses information in many cases. Fram (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that in context you must mean loses, not looses. Now that I re-read, I see that you must mean links in one Royal's infobox to an article about a different Royal, and therefore we were definitely talking at cross purposes.

I've struck my vote because, now that I know what you're talking about, I don't have a strong opinion.—S Marshall T/C 16:45, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A per my comment at the discussion page & RGloucester. Article titles aren't and shouldn't be binding for use in prose/templates. Perhaps there are other issues with the template, but our existing article titles are not the solution. Katzrockso (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• A I basically have to partially repeat what I said in an earlier post in case some people missed it. The reason the article on someone like Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester is titled the way it is, is because her actual legal name would be too long and the title alone “The Duchess of Gloucester” would be too ambiguous. Which is why we had to compromise and choose titles such as “Catherine, Princess of Wales”, “Meghan, Duchess of Sussex”, etc. as article titles despite them being styles used by divorced peeresses. We don't need to perpetuate a wrong format across multiple templates. And as another user already stated, the nuances that apply to naming articles do not dictate how pages should be listed in templates. On top of that, the names and titles among all the articles combined are inconsistent. We have Frederik X, Queen Mary of Denmark and Prince Joachim of Denmark. The monarch's article title is missing the prefix "King" while the consort's starts with "Queen" and his brother's with "Prince". We just have to take into consideration that not all readers are fluent in English or aware of how regnal numbers work and a single glance at a template where the word "King" is not even associated with the monarch can be misleading. And I'm pretty sure everyone can observe how neat and short the format in Option A is as opposed to Option B which would inevitably add to template length and width. Keivan.f^Talk 15:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You mean the "Meghan, Duchess of Sussex" which is also her official Instagram handle and used by her elsewhere officially[4]? That "wrong format"? Perhaps we chose it as both the common name and the name she uses officially, instead of whatever reason you give here. Fram (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The "whatever reason" you are referring to is an established convention which if you had clicked on the link that I provided you would have known more about. Meghan's use of her own name is inconsistent as one day she signs her name "The Duchess of Sussex" 1, while on other days it's Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex 2, or Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. What is consistent is how members of the royal family are listed at royal.uk. And I cannot spot the format [Name], [Title] on the official list or their social media handles. Keivan.f^Talk 16:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A - The status quo suffices. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B or some similar variation that helps readers figure out what they're looking at. WP:Article titles are recognizable, natural, and common, all things that help with navigation and thus help with a navigation template. Readers should not be expected to already know the formal titles of individuals and understand how they relate in this bullet list, with the only context being indentation, the meaning of which the reader must discern on their own. Using article title also helps prevent WP:EGG issues, as a title does not go to a page about that title but instead pipes to an individual person. CMD (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I have added examples of option A and B to the RfC header. As this doesn't change the actual question and is neutral, I guess no one will object. Fram (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B per Fram and the reasons I gave in the previous discussion. This is not about mandating AT guidelines in templates, it's about readability and usability. I strongly disagree that using consensus article titles would be "OR-ish" and while some uniformity might be sacrificed, it seems the status quo is already heterogeneous, with the British template including Princess Eugenie and Prince Michael of Kent for example. —Rutebega (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, 'Anne' and 'Princess Royal' are only combined in the article title as a form of parenthetical disambiguation (i.e. parenthetical in the sense of what is called 'parenthesis'). The article title cannot be 'Anne' or 'Princess Royal' alone, as both are ambiguous. In prose, she should be referred to as either 'the Princess Royal', or 'Anne', depending on context. There is no other situation where we would reproduce parenthetical disambiguation in prose, and I don't see why we should do so here either. This RfC really has nothing to do with royal or noble titles, which should not be treated as a special case. It is about whether we think it is a good idea to force people to use disambiguated article titles in prose and templates. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 22:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the RfC is about that, shifting the name used to include the recognisable names of the subjects but without unnecessary disambiguation should resolve this. (As it is the current template is already using unnecessary disambiguation, unless "of Sussex" is needed to distinguish Prince Archie from another Prince Archie.) CMD (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In prose, she should be referred to as either 'the Princess Royal', or 'Anne' according to whom? And moreover, what encyclopedic purpose is served by forcing prose to be ambiguous just so it can match someone’s idea of “correct”? What policy or guideline can you cite that would override MOS:EGG? —Rutebega (talk) 20:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

according to whom? According to a gazillion of sources in which she's referred to as "Princess Anne", "Anne", or the "Princess Royal" in prose. I'm not saying that she's not referred to as "Anne, Princess Royal" at all but that is an uncommon combination within an article's text compared to the others. That being said MOS:EGG is not a policy. I do understand the urge to be unambiguous but this should not be at the expense of accuracy. Although personally I don't find the current set up ambiguous. Keivan.f^Talk 03:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, MOS:EGG is not a policy, it's a WP:GUIDELINE which means it carries the weight of WP:CONSENSUS. In contrast, English case law and the style conventions of British newspapers hold very little sway here. While we're on the subject, the guideline MOS:PERSONOROFFICE is quite explicit: "It is necessary for a reference work to distinguish carefully between an office and an incumbent. A newspaper does not usually need to make this distinction". It even uses a highly pertinent example: "The guest list included the Prince of Wales or The Duke and Duchess of Kent, while common in UK news sources, is ambiguous without a name." —Rutebega (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually reasonable but I think it applies generally to article texts, whereby you need to disambiguate who the current Prince of Wales or Duke of Kent is because in most cases articles discussing royalty feature two people carrying the same title but at different times. Whereas in a template we know we will be landing on the person currently carrying the title if that makes sense. It's not like that by clicking on The Duke of Kent the reader expects to land on the page about Queen Victoria's father who was also Duke of Kent. Keivan.f^Talk 15:16, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B it makes sense to me to include the person who holds the title, there a handful of titles I can identify without knowing their current holder and their are a ton of people I'd know without knowing their current title, so it makes sense to include both. I do not understand a lot of the dialogue in this RFC though, so maybe I am wrong 1brianm7 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support B in service of readability and avoiding WP:EASTEREGGs. I don't see a reason to keep the current staus quo. Yes it will increase volunteer work because there needs to be a change every time there is a change but that is the case anyway with article titles. It may sound informal but clarity is better than formality imo. WP:SUPRISE applies as well. ~212.70~~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So people are going to be surprised that by clicking on the words "The King" on a template about current members of the British royal family that they will land on the current King of the United Kingdom's page? I see the point in your argument but I think this is a bit of a stretch. Keivan.f^Talk 03:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit surprising. For all of the supposed systematic bias we have, there is no standalone article on the position of UK monarch. We do have these for the current Swaziland and Malaysia, and the historical China and Germany. Relating to the British Monarchy there is Emperor of India, although that is also historical. For the UK, it seems this has been absorbed into the slightly broader Monarchy of the United Kingdom, which spends much time detailing the role of the monarch (and is where King of the United Kingdom redirects to). CMD (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a bit of a bad argument? It is likely that the reader knows who the King is (unless they were living under a rock since 2021 or so before Elizabeth II's death) but the average reader isn't deep enough in the royal title rabbit hole to know who the Duke of Anjou is unless they are into France or something. ~212.70~ ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 07:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But people may be surprised to end up at Princess Caroline of Monaco (a name many people know) when they click "The Princess of Hanover" (a name very few people know). What's the point of having "The Princess of Hanover" in the template instead of Princess Caroline of Monaco? Fram (talk) 09:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On that one I agree. Because there was an RM on the page where I advocated for it to be moved to its current title and it was successfully carried out. The change should have applied to the template as well because she is legally a princess of Monaco but Hanover as a sovereign state does not exist anymore. Keivan.f^Talk 15:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B Readers should not be expected to already know the formal titles of individuals and understand how they relate in this bullet list, with the only context being indentation. I'm UK, but even I find this format clearer and it mirrors the form used in everyday speech, and to a lesser extent, in the media. I don't find the WP:OR argument persuasive. Pincrete (talk) 09:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B. More informative, more useful. If someone "knows" who the current Prince of XYZ is, more power to them, but the templates should be accessible to all readers. (And this is even assuming that the truly proper form of reference is without such an additional identifying name - it often isn't anyway, rendering this moot and that we absolutely should include the more specific names.) SnowFire (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither/Invalid RFC - insufficient consideration for other templates and principled basis.

1. This seems only a discussion for the Template:British royal family, not necessarily any bearing or acceptability for all the templates in Category:Royal and noble family templates, so the RFC intent to determine all that seems invalid.
2. Can we get a principled basis stated ? This seems discussing superficial considerations, and I do not see anything in the template itself describing the basis or intent. Rather than a 'consensus-du-jour' on content, can we have a more explicit foundation for what it uses and why in principles or benefits the template is based on stated in the template documentation? I don't much care if the Template:British royal family says it tries to use WP:COMMONNAME or article title (not the same thing) -- or have proper Letters patent (United Kingdom) and Royal Style and Titles Act -- or 'to better navigate the related articles', but that such template documentation is absent seems the issue. I can definitely see 'Option B' as easier to understand when used within an article since the article titles would match a portion of the template and each link would be an obvious link to the article named there -- and I can see 'Option A' as more clearly showing the Royal family by proper titles. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The opening statement also includes examples of Monaco and Denmark, and later replies are about different countries as well. Fram (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm no, really only a discussion about British template. Discussion wandered enough to mention individuals from Denmark by User:Kdeivan and Monaco by User:Fram = 2 of the 24 Europe royal family templates -- and User:CMD mentioned nations Swaziland, Malaysia, China and Germany at sties that do not have templates for this RFC. And had no followup, so doesn't seem a 'discussion'. So -- insufficient consideration for all the templates in the scope proposed by all 'Category Royal and noble family templates'. e.g. the aristocratic family tree templates (Asian subsection)

Brunei Burma Busaid Cambodia Khmer Varman Mahidharapura Fujiwara Göktürk Japan Jerusalem Korea Mughal-Mongol Sri Lanka Thailand early and legend Lanna Timurid Vietnam United Arab Emirates

China Ancient Spring and Autumn period Warring States Early Middle Late Kong (Confucius)

Iran Achaemenid Arsacids Sasanian Bavandid Safavid Qajar Pahlavi

Malaysia Monarchs Johor Kedah Kelantan Negeri Sembilan Pahang Perak Perlis Selangor Terengganu Singapura-Melakan

Turkey Anatolian Seljuk Ottoman simplified

Cheers Markbassett (talk) Markbassett (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark and Monaco are already in the nom text, not just buried in the discussion. Fram (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whay does 'B' recommend "Charles III", instead of "King Charles III"? Shouldn't 'B' have everyone with either "King, Queen, Prince, Princess" etc? GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the discrepancies of allowing page titles to be used in templates which I pointed out before. And this will be replicated across multiple templates. Can you imagine what will end up happening in some of these templates? We'll have "Naruhito" and "Empress Masako"; literally giving off the impression to a clueless reader that the latter is the monarch when she's not. Keivan.f^Talk 06:24, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is no objection to adding a clarifier (King, Prince, ...) whatever before an article title if that makes the template more coherent or read smoother. We try to establish a general principle here, not some ironclad rule punishable by death if not followed to the letter. If you want to have an option B+ or C (B, but with the preceding titles added if missing from the article name), feel free to add. Fram (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I haven't kept up on the new way that IP editors are tracked, so I may be completely off-base. If so, please provide a small trout and a quick hatting of this topic.

Now that we don't have IP editors anymore, is it useful to keep old IP editor talk pages around? Most of them are not harmful, but I recently found User talk:144.160.98.31 on a report of Linter errors. Its only edits in the last twelve years had been seven edits by bots to perform various cleanup tasks, and when I visited, there were still 18 Linter errors on the page, meaning that someone was going to edit that page in the future to clean it up. I replaced its content with {{blanked IP talk}}. If someone had done that years ago, those seven bot edits would have been unnecessary. It made me wonder if there was any point in maintaining any of the IP editor talk pages, since there are (in my understanding) no more IP editors. Can we just blank them all, or at least blank the ones that have errors so that they don't clog up error reports?

Again, let me know if I am completely off-base here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 The argument for blanking old IP talk pages used to be to prevent new users at the same IP from seeing irrelevant messages. Now that that is no longer a concern, I don't see any reason to remove them as they can serve as a valuable historical record of past issues with that IP address (see Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#IP talk page blanking bots, now that we have temporary accounts). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will respond over there. I watch VPT, but not the other village pumps. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Apparently a bot periodically blanks stale IP talk pages, and some editors do the same using tools such as AWB. That is done so that if someone new inherits an IP, they don't see stale warnings and other blather on their talk. That clearly is no longer needed and IP talk should be kept as-is. That reduces churn and allows searches and WhatLinksHere to find warnings relating to copy-vios and spam which can be useful when dealing with LTAs. Also clear is that fixing old IP talk for linter errors is not productive and blanking per the OP would be best when linter errors exist. I don't see the point of adding an officious template saying the page is blanked. That was (I think) to give a clue that old messages exist and may be relevant to the current IP activity. Johnuniq (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful response, thank you. I have posted on the idea lab. If people don't like blanking IP talk pages in general, maybe we can carve out an exception for pages with Linter errors and other conditions that might otherwise require human or bot intervention. It would be great to be able to blank every IP talk page that had Linter errors. Please respond over on the idea lab to keep the conversation from forking. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht and Jonesey95: New IP user experiences are not the only argument for blanking. I became interested in the issue because, as a frequent disambiguator, it was easier to see what non-mainspace links needed fixing if large numbers of "What Links Here" results for old IP talk pages were removed from those results. BD2412 T 15:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a problem that could be solved with a quarry query (or tool that does a database query). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not complicate things for disambiguators (and other bad-link fixers). They're stressed enough with the constant flood of bad links being made into the system. BD2412 T 01:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about using the WikiProject namespace?
eg: Wikipedia:WikiProject Books -> WikiProject:Books
It can reduce it to 11 characters.

Additionally, there have been many similar discussions in the past, but most have been neglected. According to previous discussions, the 'project:' namespace is used to link to Wikipedia from MediaWiki, making it unfeasible. Example: project:wikipedia Whatback11.

The work is done with a bot and the shortcut is done with wpj:. (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we were going to add a namespace, I would just call it "Project:" space. BD2412 T 19:15, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project: is actually an alias to Wikipedia:. See, e.g., Project:VPR goes to this page automatically. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:22, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That could be changed. BD2412 T 01:06, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it can be, actually. "Project" is the canonical name for the namespace. Just like you can go to any MediaWiki wiki and use "User" or "Template" instead of having to know what the name is in that wiki's language, you can use "Project" no matter what the namespace is named there. Anomie⚔ 01:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not persuaded because I think we should largely not be creating new namespaces absent a showing that something is really necessary (and I think shortening things a bit is not a sufficiently compelling justification). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects are clearly different from regular Wikipedia articles. Several other languages ​​already use this namespace. Typing "Wikipedia:Wikiproject ~" manually is tedious and uncool. Whatback11 (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it can be confusing when WP:MATH and WP:MATHEMATICS go to separate places, one of which is a help page and the other a project page, or when Wikipedia:Books is a deprecated guideline, and the project on actual books is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books. BD2412 T 01:09, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed confusing. But perhaps the latter should also redirect to the guideline, and editors should get used to the WPMATH (that is, WP:WPMATH) shortcut. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a new namespace won't change what the redirects do: they would still have to be reconciled. In which case, if agreement could be reached, we can do that now. isaacl (talk) 03:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed WPJ:. Whatback11 (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a new WP:PSEUDONAMESPACE for WikiProjects would be a lower-overhead way of achieving at least most of what you want. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, a new namespace won't avoid any confusion on how WP:MATH and WP:MATHEMATICS go to different pages. isaacl (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea in principle, but the implementation work would be tough. Beyond the multitudinous link updates (which a bot can handle for the most part), there are certainly lots of WikiProject-related database reports and template calls that specify the Wikipedia namespace value that I don't think a bot can be relied on to fix in a lot of those cases. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 01:39, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this. The Wikipedia space is where the community can discuss more meta-aspects of the project in various discussion boards. Wikiprojects are one of these gathering areas, so they fit within this meta-space. There's no sharp delineation between WikiProjects and other areas of discussion. CMD (talk) 04:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all pages in the Wikipedia namespace are meta-discussion spaces. Some contain information or functions of Wikipedia, much like regular articles. WikiProject pages are highly fluid in nature and differ in format and purpose from general discussion spaces. The shortcuts currently used for WikiProjects are not very intuitive, but using “WPJ:” would make them much clearer. Moreover, introducing only this shortcut by itself does not require any technical modifications. Whatback11 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this shortcut does require modifications to the namespace structure, as it would have to be a namespace alias, like MOS: currently is. While making it a pseudonamespace wouldn't require technical modifications, it is a lot more controversial, and even "straightforward" proposed pseudonamespaces like T: don't have consensus for their use.

Additionally, many Wikipedia: pages other than WikiProjects are meta-discussion spaces, like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, or even the page you are currently reading! They're not any more similar in function to Wikipedia information pages than WikiProjects are, and it wouldn't make sense to have a separate namespace for each aspect of project management. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new pseudonamespace would not be uncontroversial, but I suspect the proposed WPJ: would be less controversial than T: as it's not ambiguous with e.g. Talk: and there are currently no articles starting WPJ:. There are a few articles beginning with WPJ but the only one that is not part of a longer acronym is WPJ a redirect to Workers Party of Jamaica but that's unlikely to be regarded as particularly relevant. WP:WPJ (a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan) does exist. WPJ is used in two shortcuts to mean "WikiProject" (WP:WPJGUIDE and WP:WPJM) every other projectspace page starting WPJ (WP:WPJAIL/WP:WPJAILS, WP:WPJAPAN, WP:WPJAX (Jacksonville), WP:WPJOBS, WP:WPJS (Javascript), WP:WPJW (Jewish women) and WP:WPJournals) there is a logical division between the WP and the J so aren't likely to be issues. There are no pages in the article or Wikipedia namespaces starting WPj or Wpj, with or without a colon.

The point of this is to say that while a proposal for a new WPJ: pseudonamespace is far from guaranteed to succeed, it is nonzero. My feeling is that most opposition would be on the basis of a lack of need rather than on ambiguity with encyclopaedia content. Thryduulf (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose creating more namespaces. The current solution is fine. We have far more important things to worry about than typing two extra letters or using "uncool" page titles. Toadspike [Talk] 13:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I were going to create a new namespace, it would be for XFD pages. There are more than 600,000 such pages in the Wikipedia: namespace. For comparison, there are only a couple thousand WikiProjects (and many of them are inactive). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't help with the perception by non-Wikipedians that we are eager to delete stuff :p  novov talk edits 06:34, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what if we move all WikiProjects to Portal space? BD2412 T 23:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a new article that lists disasters associated with climate change, like floods, fires, or droughts. This could be organized into a table of disasters by month, year. Could also list how or why the specific disaster is considered exacerbated/caused by climate change. I think this would be a helpful directory for people wanting to learn about the connection between climate change and current events.

My proposal is similar to these existing articles:

List of areas depopulated due to climate change

List of landmarks destroyed or damaged by climate change

Weather of 2025

2025 in the environment

A standard should be developed for inclusion on the list. I propose that such a standard include that the disaster have some kind of government designation (like state of emergency) and that it have impacted human life or health. Lastly, that sources indicate the disaster was caused or worsened by human-caused climate change. Therefore, a wildfire caused by arson would probably not be included unless sources say climate change played a significant role.

Here's some recent articles that could be included in the list:

Cyclone Ditwah

2025 European heatwaves

2025 Pakistan floods

I'm a new editor and would need help to initiate this proposal. UserDani (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think one or more categories might be a better starting point for this? I could see a list article being more demanding, especially for a newer editor. You might be able to build it off Category:Disasters, assuming there isn't already something there that substantially overlaps with your ideas (nothing jumped out at me, but I didn't look that carefully). Just an idea. DonIago (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea. The Category:Natural disasters might be an even better place to start. That said, this Wikipedia:Categorization says "consider whether a list would be more appropriate than a category (or in addition to a category) for a grouping of pages. As examples, a list of Nobel laureates could include dates; a list formatted as a table can provide options for sorting the entries."

I'm happy to do whatever the community thinks is best. UserDani (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidance linked to from WP:LIST before you start. Joe vom Titan (talk) 07:29, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curious whether Super Cyclone Amphan would make it to this list or not? It was created by a butterfly effect of COVID-19.^[1]

The pandemic is widely considered as a natural phenomenon of a virus adapting to Human hosts, but the subsequent lockdown was a descision taken by Humans. Cdr. Erwin Smith (talk) 11:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 isn't Climate change, so I'd think probably not. Anomie⚔ 15:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How often do actual scientists attribute a specific weather event to climate change, versus statements like "climate change makes extreme weather events like X more frequent and more severe" without drawing a direct connection? Or would most of this list be based on statements from politicians spinning things for political gain (including scientists acting as politicians for funding or favorship) and the popular press spinning things for readership, with pro-climate-change and anti-climate-change editors fighting incessantly over which of these are "good enough" like they do other political issues? Anomie⚔ 15:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is in regards to DRN A rule 2.[6] The rule currently doesn't clearly differentiate between DRN participants and completely unrelated third parties.

The point of the rule;

The rule is intended to prevent gaming the system or "forum shopping" where if a case is already handled by DRN, editors must not seek other avenues. However it doesn't account for matters addressing unrelated vandalism or disruptions by non-participants outside the scope of the DRN dispute.

Problem

For example, if you are engaged in DRN case over a dispute in an article. But a different editor (that is not part of this dispute) starts repeatedly vandalizing that article. It only makes intuitive sense to report that editor to the vandalism noticeboard, and not to DRN as it's not a DRN matter. But one is unable to do so without also technically breaking DRN rule #2. They be forced to withdraw just to make the report.

Proposed Solution

There should had been an exception or clarification. If the disruption is well outside the DRN case. Like it regards a completely different section, and the other editor is not even a participant of the DRN case, then it should be fine to report that user to noticeboards if they don't respond.

Proposed Clause

Editors participating in DRN may report conduct to other noticeboards if the conduct is entirely unrelated to a DRN dispute, and involves an editor who is not a participant in the DRN case.

This clarification keeps DRN section focused on its intended dispute, while allowing editors to still address unrelated matters through the appropriate noticeboards.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Text generated by a large language model or similar AI technology has been collapsed in line with the relevant guideline and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hello everyone, I’d like to propose that Wikipedia recognize NIH’s iCite platform as a reliable source for citation impact metrics in biographies of scientists. At present, we often see commercial rankings such as Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers list mentioned in articles, but not NIH bibliometric data—even though iCite is government‑backed, open‑access, and reproducible by any reader. Rationale: • Scientific validity: NIH iCite is widely used by granting agencies, universities, and governments to evaluate research proposals and careers. It reflects the consensus of the scientific community rather than editorial judgment by journalists or commercial firms. • Verifiability: Any reader can reproduce the results by entering PubMed‑linked publications’ portfolios into iCite. This makes it uniquely transparent compared to opaque commercial rankings. Neutrality: Presenting percentile data (e.g., “According to NIH’s iCite platform in July 2025, her publications ranked in the 81st percentile of neuroscience papers funded by NIH since 1980”) is factual, not promotional, and avoids subjective interpretation. • Consistency: Wikipedia already allows citation‑based recognitions (e.g., Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers list). NIH iCite provides a more rigorous and transparent alternative. Proposal: • Permit inclusion of NIH iCite percentile data in biographies of scientists, provided the data is presented with clear attribution (e.g., “According to NIH’s iCite platform…”). • Encourage editors to list selected publications with PubMed links, so readers can verify the percentile themselves. • Treat NIH iCite outputs as equivalent to other recognized bibliometric honors but avoid editorial synthesis beyond what iCite directly reports. Benefits: • Improves accuracy and neutrality in representing scientific impact. • Reduces reliance on opaque commercial rankings. • Aligns Wikipedia with evaluation practices already standard in science policy and funding. I welcome feedback from the community on whether this could become an accepted standard for biographies of scientists. Thank you! Walerus (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use an LLM to phrase this argument? Joe vom Titan (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. I wrote: "NIH metrics are used every day by granting institutions to rank the grant proposals, by science institutions to evaluate people, by government to decide about funding science. NIH evaluation is by comparable contemporary citation count, which is an evaluation by the science community. Not by a newspaper science editor, who suddenly arbitrarely finds an item interesting enough to write about. Not by Clarivate listing The Best Papers based on unknown murky criteria. NIH data when presented as "among all PubMed- registered worldwide papers on the related neuroscience topics, since 1980, as it stood in the year of 2025" are quite reproducible for everybody, even for journalists - iCite is an open platform. So, if an article provides a list of 10 selected papers by the individual with PubMed links and says that in July 2025 ICite NIH placed that portfolio in the 75% of all NIH-granted papers or in 81% of all published papers globally in this area of neuroscience in the same period - this does not require any additional interpretation, it seems. This is a unique statement valid forever, infinitesimally changing from year to year because of a flow of citations. It is immediately available for verification - by everybody. NIH Icite works across all disciplines and permits to compare them. The link to the personal iCite Analysis page should be provided in an article. NIH iCite and Web of Science ARE reliable secondary sources, with having an open access.". Then I asked Copilot to improve my wording. Even fiction writers do it now! Walerus (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using LLMs in discussions is discouraged (Wikipedia:LLMTALK). ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 08:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing copilot did was make your text longer. So it takes longer to read. That's the opposite of an improvement. Joe vom Titan (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You are right. We the immigrant scientists really need at least light editing from LLM, even if it is discouraged, but not forbidden by Wikipedia. But in this case I permitted more wording, because I started a very controversial suggestion for Wikipedia, I expect a lot of resistance. Walerus (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We would much rather hear from you in your own words than hear your words distorted by a chatbot. Wikipedia, as a global project, is very accepting of people who don't have English as a first language. LLM use we're somewhat chilly on. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 02:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! As a scientist and educator, I have written hundreds of articles in English, but I still have problems with the English articles (absent in all my Slavic languages), and so I had to ask my collaborators to edit them, or to improve some nuances of wording. I do not want to ruin a good wiki proposal by linguistic errors. Let us not be afraid of LLM in science, if it is used only to smooth out text. Otherwise, my submission will be rejected every time because of the minor language errors. Walerus (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care about minor errors if the text is still understandable. LLMs can change the meaning of your text entirely to what you don't intend it to be. If your text is comprehensible, then it's OK, no need to completely polish it. ~2025-31733-18 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to get this going for a while and failed to get any momentum/conversation, so I figured I'd try this venue. I've been involved in both projects a bit for a while, and I see some problems that could be overcome by the synergy of combining them. First conversation was back in January at vital articles, and April at Articles for Articles for improvement. There were a few people in the discussions, but one comment mentioned we would need broader discussion.

Articles for improvement suffers a bit from lack of engagement. Proposals can go months without votes, and there are not as many proposals as I'd expect to see. The filter for what articles are nominated is "3 more support votes than oppose votes" with some suggested criteria. These criteria are:

• Highly important topics. Anything that has top or high importance to a WikiProject is likely highly important.
• Interesting to the general public. This can be evidenced by page views. Nominations with less than 200 views per day rarely succeed.
• Needing of improvement, with expansion opportunity. Stubs; start-class, and short C-class articles are the most ideal for improvement. Give due consideration before nominating higher-quality articles.
• Not targets of controversy. Keep in mind that controversial articles (articles that are the subject of heated discussion, edit warring, or questioned notability) can be very difficult to improve within a week.

Vital articles suffers from a lack of use. A lot of time and energy has been spent curating a list of 50,000 vital articles (based on the project criteria) and other then the tags on the Wikipedia talk pages, the project is not used for much. There are three main purposes listed for the vital articles, and the important one for this discussion is "Give direction to the prioritization of improvements of English Wikipedia articles (e.g. which articles to bring to WP:GA and WP:FA status)." The vital article criteria for what makes something "vital" is listed here. For an article to get added to level 5, it needs at least 4 support votes, and to get to level 4 after that needs 5 or more supports, and so on. Levels 1, 2, and 3 of vital articles are fairly stable, while levels 4 and 5 are still quite dynamic.

The goals and criteria of the two projects seem aligned. The selection criteria for vital articles is stricter then articles for improvement, and the two sets of criteria are fairly similar. As we can only have one article for improvement per week, there is always going to be a bit of a bottleneck, so we need to be quite selective of which articles are nominated.

Based on this, I propose we merge the two projects, and use vital articles from levels 2, 3, and 4 that are C class or lower as the primary selection criteria (focusing on levels 2 and 3 first). This would limit the articles for improvement a bit and help ensure we are focusing on articles that have passed a few filters that indicate they are viewed as important to the project but have not had the attention they need. Importantly, it makes use on the time already spent at the vital article project, and reduces the overall amount of voting/places to vote, streamlining the process. This would also make use of the resource we have with the vital articles list, and help satisfy the projects goal of prioritizing the pages that need improvement.

Please discuss here. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merging semi-active projects if similar is not a bad idea, that said, while I've been active with Vitals, I am not active with Improvement. In general, it seems logical that vital articles (read: important articles) should be priotitizxed for improvement. But I fear the organizational intertia and the desire to have one's own playground will make this proposal moot anyway. Let's hope I am proven wrong. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve with a discussion at the village pump, if the two projects in question didn't express interest in your proposal. In any case, I feel if there is a group of volunteers interested in improving articles from the Vital article lists, they can set up their own process of highlighting an article to work on, without affecting the current articles for improvement process. isaacl (talk) 04:18, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the talk pages at both projects. The issue is mostly one of eyes, I don't think many people check the talk page at AFI much, and the more big picture stuff at the vital articles doesn't have a ton of participation. I figured a venue like this could get more people to discuss and think of possibilities. The vital articles has had several contests with financial rewards for improving some articles, and AFI has a good system to notify people about an article for the week. It seems redundant to introduce another system to promote article to improve, and redundant to have voting happening in both places. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:31, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you're just trying to look for possibilities, then I wish you hadn't proposed a merger, because that narrows options to a specific one. Personally I'm not too concerned about having multiple queues of articles to improve. That's the reality on English Wikipedia: editors often have specific areas of interest, and so they'll look for interesting articles within them. I think it's better to just find people willing to collaborate following your proposed process, rather than change another project's process to fit. isaacl (talk) 04:44, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think of possibilities about how we could execute a merger between the two pages and implement a more streamlined system is what I mean. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 07:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said previously regarding the vital articles initiative, volunteer editors are generally free to spend time on whatever initiatives they like as long as it doesn't have an undue effect or burden on those not participating. I don't agree with forcing the editors participating in the articles for improvement initiative to replace their process. isaacl (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wouldn't force editors to participate in the articles for improvement initiative, this would use the vital articles as the source for articles for improvement. Rather then nominating articles separately on AIF, they could be drawn from the existing list. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 18:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editors participating in the current articles for improvement process haven't expressed an interest in your proposal. I disagree with changing the articles for improvement process to one that the current participants aren't interested in. It's just not necessary; a vital article for improvement initiative is a fine project on its own. isaacl (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AFI nominations page has averaged 13 daily views per day since January of this year, with a pretty sharp drop off in July. The talk page averages 2 views per day since January of this year. Just level 5 of the Vital articles project, not including the almost 40 sub- pages, has averaged 124 views per day during that same period. The main talk page at level 5 is not particularly active, as that is where level 5 policy and quota is discussed, not article nominations. I don't think there are that many editors who even saw my proposals at AFI. The strongest thing AFI has going for it is push notifications when an article is nominated, the vital articles strongest thing is the amount of discussion around items added to upper levels of the list. Making a parallel system is redundant for notifications, separate lists, and maintaining a separate voting process seems redundant when the two projects seem like their goals are extremely closely aligned. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:09, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Initiatives can co-exist while sharing common infrastructure when useful. It's uncollaborative to tell another initiative, without their agreement, that they can no longer use the infrastructure they developed for the purposes they intended. isaacl (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have been active in both projects, and am trying to get input from both projects, and others, here. After being active in both projects, I think this merger makes sense as the AFI is really not all that active, and the selection criteria/process for articles to improve is a weak point in that project. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:11, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many folks don't care about organizational side of things. If nobody objects to the merger here and there, you can make annoucements at the talk pages of the projects that you'll be merging them in the near future, and if nobody objects, carry it out.

What's more important is practicalities. What will happen with the merge? Which pages will be marked as archived, moved, created, etc.? I'd suggest checking the history of these pages, and pinging here all of their creators, and most active/recent editors. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm over on GENSEX. Back when it was IPs, it was maybe 1 in 100 times where an IP user on a GENSEX article was there to do anything constructive. Now that it's temp accounts that can come back infinite times after being banned or blocked, it's gotten a lot more aggressive. I would thus like to politely suggest blocking temps from CTOP articles, at the very least making a CTOP designation come with an autoconfirmed protection level. Snokalok (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could see having autoconfirmed restriction for GENSEX as an option, but making it the default for all CTOPs feels like overkill, not least because that would include all BLPs. lp0 on fire () 14:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay with an autoconfirmed restriction for GENSEX Snokalok (talk) 14:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that "CTOP articles" include every article about – and every part of an article that discusses – any living person. Read broadly, this would be a pretty intense restriction. Note also that proposals to amend an existing GS regime must be notified to WP:AN per this RfC. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snokalok: If you're still dealing with that one TA, just ignore them and report to AIV. I left advice on your talk page.

For context: Snokalok has been dealing with trolling from a TA-hopping user described in this ANI discussion for about two weeks now. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we need a broader response from admins.

Snokalok, pre-TA deployment, we could block an IP and cookie-block the web browser, and the person could take their phone or laptop to a coffee shop, or power cycle their DSL modem, clear cookies, and just keep going. Now, the appearance is different, but we can still block both the IP and also cookie-block the web browser – just like we used to, even though it doesn't look the same superficially. The new system is exactly as (in)effective at stopping that kind of user as the old system.

You can Special:EmailUser a blocking admin to make sure that they're blocking the IP as well as the temp account, but other than that, it's the same problem we've been dealing with for years. To make the revert harassment less visible, you can go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo and disable notifications for "Edit revert". Then you can follow up when you choose to, via your watchlist or Special:MyContributions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A great situation I have had to deal with is when a TA is using proxies and hops both accounts and proxies with every single edit. This gap makes the enforcement 10x harder than dealing with proxy editors used to be. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:41, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How has having 2025-12345-67 in the history page and the IP address available at the click of a button made it 10x harder to deal with an IP hopping editor compared to having the IP address directly in the history page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because the fact that a proxy is editing is hidden to everyone who does not have TAIV. Before it was clear to everyone and you can simply block the proxy no questions asked, but now the TA can switch both accounts and IPs every edit and the proxy will probably not be blocked. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Open proxies are routinely blocked no matter who's using them; that hasn't changed.

I don't think I'm understanding your concern, or maybe you aren't understanding the process the same way that I do.

In October:

• A troll edits from User:192.0.2.0 and gets blocked. The block is enforced via the IP address (which is visible to the general public) and a cookie (which is not).
• The troll clears the cookies and switches IP addresses.
• The troll now edits from 2001:32b9:b449:b63f:07ce:b614:d418:af74 and gets blocked. The block is enforced via the IP address and a cookie.
• The troll clears the cookies and switches IP addresses.
• Repeat ad nauseum.

In December:

• A troll edits from User:~2025-12345-67 and gets blocked. The block is enforced via the IP address (203.0.113.12; it is not visible to the general public) and a cookie, just like before.
• The troll clears the cookies and switches IP addresses.
• The troll now edits from ~2025-54321-76 and gets blocked. The block is enforced via the IP address (3fff:37d3:aedf:fb6c:6858:f1cb:da81:5372; it is not visible to the general public) and a cookie, just like before
• The troll clears the cookies and switches IP addresses.
• Repeat ad nauseum.

Are we agreed that this is what happened under the old system and what happens now under the new system? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are only blocked when someone notices, which now most editors cannot do. What happens now is they do not block the proxy. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA, could you tell me what you mean by "the proxy"? I don't think you mean Proxy server.

My guess is that you mean that the blocking admins usually block "User:~2025-12345-67" and auto-block the user's IP address ("203.0.113.12"), but the admins only sometimes also add a longer-term block on the IP address. Is that what you mean? (If so, why would it matter whether non-admins can "notice" the IP address being used by "User:~2025-12345-67"?)

Or do you mean something like nobody reports "User:~2025-12345-67", so admins never block anyone? Or something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing IPs-being-used-as-open-proxies are not blocked unless an administrator notices it is an open proxy and blocks it. They can be blocked for any reason or any time, but as there is no foolproof detection are only blocked when that is realized.

When someone is TA hopping, the blocking admin, in my experience, only blocks the most recent TA, as they have moved on from the old one, leaving the several dozen other open proxy IPs they used free. And since no one can see the problem with the IP unless they specifically check, which very few users can now do, they remain a problem and are not blocked as open proxies.

There is one specific editor I have to deal with who does this and often times only their most recent TA has been blocked, and so all of the IPs they use are unblocked, so they have just hopped back onto those. Whereas before I could simply report to AIV and say "disruptive open proxy" and so me pointing out the open proxy would get it blocked, but now since I have to list every single TA and the TA is defunct after one use, only their newest IP is banned. Now they just keep hopping around, because since they move on from the TA, those are not blocked, and neither are their IPs. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP hopping is not the same as Wikipedia:Open proxies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was? My complaint from the first comment I posted in this thread is that TAs allows for an abusive editor to hop both their open proxy IP and their account with every single edit, which causes the problems I mentioned. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't ban all IP editors from CTOPs, so why would be ban all TAs? This is overkill. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. CTOP articles already have many tighter restrictions than other articles, and more and more articles seem to be covered (although I'm finding it difficult to find out how many). Either we need to tighten the restrictions on CTOPS, or to expand the number of CTOPS, as seems to be happening. Doing both would completely change the nature of Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in favor of completely changing the nature of Wikipedia. ―Mandruss ☎ 2¢. IMO. 00:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion by Mandruss. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, with the implementation of temporary accounts the Oversight Team would like to request feedback on some needed changes to the oversight policy. Please join in the discussion here. Thank you much, Primefac (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]