Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 219

"Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) " is too long. How about change to "Wikipedia:Village pump (basic) "? Whatback11 (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think the word "miscellaneous" is that long or obscure. "Basic" is confusing. Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:23, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what basic means here. Surely it's not Basic (slang), but the meaning of miscellaneous is much more obvious than the meaning of basic would be in this title. — Newslinger talk 11:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

"Basic" is not a good description of the topics this board is for - to me "basic" implies simple, uncomplicated questions about fundamentals rather than anything to do with subject matter. Questions relating e.g. policy belong on the policy village pump regardless of there complexity, questions unrelated to the subject of the other village pumps belong here even if they are very complex. If the length of "miscellaneous" was an issue (and I'm not convinced it is) then surely the obvious thing would be to change it to "misc"? Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• agree To misc

Whatback11 (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I think "miscellaneous" is fine. If we were going to change it, "basic" is not at all correct. "Other" would be more accurate. Anomie⚔ 11:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

If "miscellaneous" is too long for you and you can't copy and paste it then just create a redirect at WP:Village pump (misc). Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Or use the even shorter WP:VPM. Anomie⚔ 13:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Basic is far less clear. No change needed. Stifle (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Ya basic. It's devastating. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

This has clearly gone stale, especially since the Main Page banner was removed, and the next available backport window (the next time a logo change could get deployed) isn't until next Monday. Sorry folks. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:04, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

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

---

Should the Wikipedia logo be changed for one day to commemorate the 7 millionth article? To the right is the modified version of the last millionth's logo. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC) Edit: Chaotic Enby has created a logo that better resembles the one used in the last million. 23:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but I prefer a more modern logo. Current is fine, if we do not have any alternatives. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 03:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  This. The serif font, yellow/gold gradient, and banner border are all weird. I know Wikipedia is known for having a long-outdated look (and some of us are proud of this), but if we're creating something new to represent our progress it should look...new. Toadspike [Talk] 06:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  The gold is a reference to the new US presidency.^[Joke] Aaron Liu (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Based on the below images, I support either the red or pink one. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Meh would prefer to be celebrating something about quality rather than quantity. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Was it changed last time? Mrfoogles (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, to a version with the red ribbon. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• It's funny that this conversation is happening on the same page as #Finishing WP:LUGSTUBS2. Some1 (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Right! People never learn. Levivich (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Changing the logo would probably take at least a couple days, maybe a week or two, because of needing to get consensus, then needing to write a patch and deploy it. Those are not fast processes. Would folks still want this if it's weeks after the 7 millionth article date? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Readers aren't necessarily checking the exact number, so celebrating the milestone even a few days/weeks late would still be just as meaningful in my opinion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:42, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support Assuming it can be done in time/near when the 7 millionth article is created. --Enos733 (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  The milestone has already passed. Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• 1 day is too short, if we're going to do this, let's do a week. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• 

  Meh, that logo isn't especially modern or elegant – I especially second Toadspike's more detailed remarks. While a serif font could be okay (assuming we're going for Linux Libertine Bold), the border on the text, and the yellow-white gradients, all look tacky and not very professional. If we really want, a variant of the other 6 million logo would look more elegant.
  The circumstances are also less than ideal, as, from what I understand, the 7 millionth article came in the middle of a batch of 200-something mass created city council articles, which isn't really what we wish to encourage.
  Edit: with a cleaner logo, support – although I still believe that the circumstances are less than ideal, it is still a strong message to show that Wikipedia is still just as thriving. Raw article count shouldn't be encouraged for editors, but these flashy logo changes are mostly destined to readers (and potential readers), and the communication opportunity is pretty good. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:49, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sure there are non mass-created articles in the final 1,000. At a slight topical shift, if we want to encourage quality, we're currently at 6,741 FAs. A bit of work to go to catch up to a 0.1% total article rate, but we could also celebrate 7,000. On a longer view, we could begin planning for the big 10k FA, presumably with a much longer lead time than we had for this. (Although in both cases only if this doesn't pressure the FAC coords, who presumably should treat potential milestone FAs the same as any other.) CMD (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• I support the idea but let's keep the design simple like the 6M one and run it for a week. --qedk (t 愛 c) 10:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• 

  Sadly, the 6 million logo above wasn't available in a SVG version (besides a lower quality autotraced one), although I've tried to make one in the same style for 7 million articles. Feel free to make any improvements to it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Support this version. Thank you for creating it, Chaotic Enby! I agree in principle with the "quality, not quantity" folks, but the two are not mutually exclusive. 50K GAs and 10K FAs are milestones we should reach soon, which we can also celebrate with a logo change. But we celebrate easily-understood milestones to encourage readers to become editors, and article count is the most easily-understood milestone of all. Toadspike [Talk] 12:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Support this version as well, and completely agree with Toadspike. A logo celebration is for readers. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅💬⋅📋 13:31, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Support this version. I think that changing the logo for a brief period of time is a great way to advertise the progress done so far. Quality would be way harder to advertise in my opinion (Since it is way harder to shorten into one number and to objectively measure) Madotea (talk) 18:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose in favor of Wikipedia celebrating quality over quantity for a change, which is even more important in the age of AI. Generating a lot of text is not an accomplishment in and of itself. Levivich (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Btw I'd probably support marking major milestones like 10M and 25M articles, but I don't support changing the logo every 1M articles. It's WP:EDITCOUNTITIS to keep track of such small intervals--the encyclopedia grew by 16%, from 6M to 7M. Wow, big deal. Levivich (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The 6M mark was passed in 2020. Celebrating every 5 years doesn't feel so much like a "small interval" – at the current rate, 10M won't be reached before 2040. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

The interval isn't the passage of time, it's the article count. We already celebrate the passage of time: Wikipedia's 20th birthday was celebrated and its 25th will be celebrated next year. Sure, change the logo for those anniversaries. But our article count increasing by 16% does not seem like anything worthy of celebration to me. When you have 6 million articles, adding another million is not a big deal. Even less so when we hit 8 million. I'd rather we reserve logo celebrations for actually-meaningful milestones, like 5,000 FAs, or 500,000 women biographies, or a million articles about the southern hemisphere... take your pick, there are plenty of meaningful milestones to choose from. "16% increase in article count" isn't one of them, IMO. Plus, it sends the wrong message: that what we're about is article count. Given that every year there will be new notable topics (new notable events, new notable works, etc.), article count increasing is a given; it's not an accomplishment in and of itself. Levivich (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

sprits good Lokeshgujjar444 (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Anything like this or Wikicup that encourages simple creation without any expectation of quality is bad behavior. How many of the 7M articles are GAs or FAs? Its less than 1% of the total article count which is not a good look if we're just praising simple creation. Masem (t) 12:05, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  0.69% GA or FA, although GA is likely bottlenecked more by reviewing time than it is by content creation. CMD (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  How does the Wikicup encourge simple creation without any expectation of quality? Points are only awarded for quality articles (GAs, FAs, etc.) and for DYKs. Cremastra (u — c) 12:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Was about to say the same – WikiCup only awards points for content that has passed some kind of quality check. @Masem, I encourage you to strike the Cup from your comment. Toadspike [Talk] 12:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  I still feel that the Wikicup encourages rushing processes along to earn points during the limited time the cup is held. Any type of gamification of wikiprocesses can be a problem. Masem (t) 17:24, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  No comment on the oppose, but as to the WikiCup comment the opposite is true. I and the other WikiCup judges have been disqualifying entries rather frequently for not being of high quality. I do get the gamification concerns though, but claiming the Cup "encourages simple creation without any expectation of quality" is false. Epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  Gamification is a great tool. Backlog drives can make good progress on or clear out a backlog, and also serve as a great recruitment tool and raise WikiProject morale. Definitely a net positive, imo. Outliers can be dealt with via ANI and/or a re-review system. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose celebrate quality not quantity.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support Chaotic Enby's version to run for a week. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 14:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. We shouldn't celebrate an editor dumping nearly 200 identical poor articles in violation of WP:MASSCREATE just so they can claim the 7 millionth article. The less attention we give to this, the better chance we have to stop such silliness. Quality over quantity seems more apt than ever here. Fram (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Despite having more articles, our pageviews have not really changed - existing in a range of 7 - 8.5 million since 2015. While it's possible that without an expansion of articles we'd be even lower, I am skeptical that our readers actually care about our number of articles. Instead I think it makes us as editors feel good. I think there's a way to make the editing elite feel good without changing the logo, and also agree with the general focus on quality of information for our readers rather than focusing on the quantity of articles, and so I oppose this logo change but support other ways of celebrating the milestone. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

  According to Wikipedia:Statistics#Page views: Most articles have very low traffic. In 2023, 90% of articles averaged between zero and ten page views per day. The median article gets about one page view per week. Because the top 0.1% of high-traffic articles can each get millions of page views in a year, the mean is about 100 times the median. If that % still holds true today, it would mean that ~6,300,000 articles of the 7 million articles average between 0 and 10 page views a day. Some1 (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support we can find time to celebrate, and though 7 million articles of varying quality is arbitrary, all milestones on a volunteer encyclopedia are probably a bit arbitrary. and ChaoticEnby's work looks nice. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Given the fractious nature of the post-7 million discussion and the incentive structure that led towards it, and perhaps very pertinently due to it being seemingly impossible to identify the actual 7 millionth article given how rapidly things are in flux, I have come around to leaning oppose towards celebrating a specific article. I'm not at this moment opposed to celebrating "7 million articles" in the plural, but it should be clear that the proposal is not to "commemorate the 7 millionth article". CMD (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Mild oppose Would have little impact and celebrates the wrong thing (article count vs. quality) North8000 (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as completely pointless imv. JavaHurricane 21:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Quality over quantity all day. ^EF⁵ 02:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Conditional Support, upon consensus on which article to represent the 7-million articles milestone at Wikipedia talk:Seven million articles, and that the chosen article is of acceptable quality. There is a shortlist of articles which may represent the milestone. While some may have started as stubs or start-class articles, the respective authors of the shortlisted articles and other editors have started on improving the quality of the articles, possibly in hopes of their article getting chosen at the end of the consensus building exercise. There is no rush to push the logo out. – robertsky (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  "The English Wikipedia has reached 7,000,000 articles with [chosen article]" seems like a misleading statement then if we don't exactly know what the 7-millionth article is and are just choosing one to represent it. Some1 (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support an important commemoration. Cremastra (u — c) 12:36, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Partly support As seen in German Wikipedia when hitting 3 million articles, why not try it here? 〈興華街〉📅❓ 14:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support a logo that is similar to the 6 mil one 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 16:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Out of curiosity - what is the current count of GA & FA articles? Are we anywhere close to a milestone on those? If so… THAT would be something that is much more meaningful to celebrate. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  We're at 41,835 GAs, 6,741 FAs, and 4,655 FLs (for a total of 53,231 quality articles). I'm guessing the next big milestones would be 50,000 GAs, 7,000 FAs and 5,000 FLs, and the latter two would be reachable in one or two years (although I doubt enough readers care about lists to celebrate it on the main page). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: Edited the 6 million red logo to be 7 million. Font for the red banner is Roboto Condensed, and then bolded, if anyone else wants to do it (I have no idea how to properly photo edit.)

  

  ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support. We have to celebrate the small wins. This is good PR, attracts press attention, puts Wikipedia in the news, reminds people of the website that is secretly funneling ChatGPT's wisdom. The next 8M milestone may be 6-7 years away, and that's if the project survives – it most likely will, but don't take it for granted.
  Levivich makes a reasonable point above about celebrating quality instead, but it's not easy to communicate a milestone like 50,000 good articles to the intended audience ("are the other 6.5M articles bad?"). Featured article milestones are a better sell, but our count of FAs is embarrassingly low. – SD0001 (talk) 21:57, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

  On PR: I'm unsure about the design style of the logos put forward. They are inconsistent with Wikipedia/MediaWiki's design style, though I certainly cannot make anything better. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  My proposal went with the Linux Libertine font, which is the one used in Wikipedia's logo typography (although bolded for better readability, so the letter shapes slightly differ). That's the main reason why I didn't want to copy the exact style of the "6 million" logo. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yeah, but the ribbon really stands out. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  "50,000 good articles to the intended audience ("are the other 6.5M articles bad?") What happened to the other 0.45 million? :P Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support Chaotic Enby's version for up to a week (seven days for seven million?) While I'm definitely in the quality-over-quantity camp, I think it's worth making a (not-too-gaudy) statement that can be appreciated by the media and casual visitors – we're still here, we're still creating and improving content, and we're still mostly human. For the same reason, if we do have a special logo it should be up for more than 24 hours – it may be easy for us insiders to forget that people who care about Wikipedia don't necessarily visit the site every day. – ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 02:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support I like the red 7 million logo, and I like seven days for seven million. This is a fun tradition, and its a little victory to celebrate! We should be proud of what we've accomplished! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Changing to oppose. The moment has passed. I'm very disillusioned here. How could we not make a simple logo change happen in time?? We did it easily, and with no fuss at six million. We took like... a day, and nobody raised a fuss. At any rate, with Vector 2022, we need a square logo (sans the Wikipedia subtitle), in an svg, which nobody has even created. So chock this up as a dismal and upsetting failure. When we hit 8 million, I'll make sure to do this like 6 months before we think we'll hit that number, so we have enough time for everybody to complain and do like three close reviews. Super disappointing. Where'd our spirit of fun go? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

You want this thing? NOPE hahah .. VPP in a nutshell. — GreenC 05:36, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

As indicated below the plan with V22 is to retain the puzzle globe but replace the wordmark with the ribbon. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support Variety is the spice of life and so celebrating this with a splash is a healthy sign of continuing vigour. I'm not fussy about the format – the key thing is to show that we're still alive and kicking.

Editors who prefer quality to quantity can celebrate that too but the numbers there are not so good. Currently there are just 6,743 FAs and 41,837 GAs and my impression is that those numbers don't rise so steadily. So, we should count our blessings and celebrate what we can.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ugh. A fine demonstration of Wikipedia's unreliability; the English language Wikipedia has 7,101,871 articles (and Wikipedia as a whole has 66,034,927). What's celebratory to some is self-congratulatory to others, and this does beg the question "but are they any good?" NebY (talk) 12:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• oppose self-congratulatory navel-gazing. ValarianB (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support each million articles is a huge milestone (considering each one has to hold its own weight). I think either ChaoticEnby's version or the one initially proposed would work.

Mikeycdiamond (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gonzo fan2007 for some of the repercussions of dispute over which article was 7,000,000th and whether it and many others held their own weight in any way. NebY (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support but not the original suggestion. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• Sure what negatives are there? If anything, it will generate some free publicity. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Support ribbon logo. fun tradition and doesn't come around every year. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 17:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Support red or pink ribbon versions. This is an important milestone that should be celebrated! Yeah, many (maybe even most) articles aren't of great quality, but should that really matter? Wikipedia will always be a work in progress, and said progress should be recognised wherever possible. Loytra (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Support but make the text on the ribbon gold. I have been waiting for this for ages, Finally I am here for an event that I am not blocked for! Toketaa^talk 18:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Comment - maybe including a casualty count would make it more interesting - x articles, y editors imprisoned, z articles taken down by court order. Maybe y is zero-ish for English Wikipedia and z is one-ish (temporary). More impressive than 7 million articles in a way. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The one article that got taken down (Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation) has been brought back a few weeks ago! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:56, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• It looks like there is solid support to do this, so if we're doing it, we should do it soon, before the moment passes us by. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Novem Linguae or @Xaosflux Perhaps you folks could make it happen? I recall it being able to happen fairly quickly when we did six million. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:41, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Here are the steps to request a temporary logo: meta:Requesting_wiki_configuration_changes#Changing_a_wiki's_logo (I heard the logo test tool was having an error the other day, if it won't work just note that and proceed). A prior change was done using a hack that we have been told not to use anymore. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:52, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  By the way, I just made File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en-7m.svg square so the implementation works correctly (as mentioned in the linked page). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm pretty busy today and travelling tonight so I can't say I've got time to figure out that process rn, if someone else is up for it that'd be a great help. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  Notably, something needed is going to be showing of community consensus -- such as a closed discussion finding as such. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:59, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  The community already did this for the 5M and 6M milestones and so there's an existing consensus and tradition. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:27, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  You might want to cut and paste this bullet and its replies into an "implementation" sub-heading. I agree that getting someone to formally close the discussion would be a good idea (maybe list it at WP:ANRFC?). Do we know which of the multiple proposed logos achieved consensus? Do we know how many days the altered logo should be up for? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

• Support, it's nice to have something to celebrate, and we must be proud of the achievement. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
• @CaptainEek: "solid support"? By my rough count it's a little less than 2/3 supports and 1/3 opposes, with a fair number of weak on either side. I'm not outright opposed, but I think it's a stretch to say "solid" given Wikipedia's notions of consensus. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Goldsztajn at a rough count of 20 to 8, that seems solid to me, and it's going to take some time to get the ball rolling. Like, if you were in a room of 28 people, and 20 of them were on one side, even if they were grumbling, you'd say "clearly they have the majority". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  In any event, config changes of this sort are not done on Fridays and weekends, so there's plenty of time for an uninvolved closer to assess consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:16, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

  They don't do it 3/7 days in a week? I didn't realize how much slower the process is these days. I guess the lesson for 8 million is to plan out a logo change ~ten thousand articles before it happens. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:12, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. See wikitech:Deployments. I think the same process was in use for the 6M milestone, but it may have been overshadowed by other even worse stuff. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'd concur with the 20 support, but I count 12 opposes (including my Meh, but not Chaotic Enby's) that are more on the oppose side than the support side. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  FWIW - the last print edition of Britannica had 40,000 articles, I'd be less grouchy celebrating 7 million Wikipedia articles *and* more GAs than the last print edition of Britannica had articles. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  I recently discovered WP:EBE. Looks like dunking on the Encyclopedia Britannica is a tradition as old as Wikipedia itself. Toadspike [Talk] 12:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

  Meh… even McDonalds finally stopped posting signs bragging about how many hamburgers they sold. Blueboar (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Support and it makes me a little sad that even something this tiny and cute is being dragged into the deletionist hellpit. I guarantee no reader is going to look at the logo and think "wow, these articles must suck and/or be created by the Wikipedia scapegoat." Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Support: I think we’re probably due for a discussion about how and whether to celebrate x millionth article milestones going forward. However, I say we should celebrate this milestone with a logo change, even if for one last time. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• I am not opposed to this, but I would point out that the new Vector skin's Wikipedia logo is quite small nowadays. If we implement the same logo design as in years past, it might not be legible anymore. Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, and on the subject of Vector 2022 the logo actually consists of three separate images (logo, wordmark, tagline) which are specified separately in the config file (whereas legacy Vector still uses one file). So you will need to change the logo proposal to fit in that format. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:05, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, what if we just temporarily change the tagline away from "The Free Encyclopedia" to a ribbon that says "7 Million Articles". Sounds like that is possible and would be the cleanest solution. Mz7 (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'm partial to that idea. Ca ^{talk to me!} 05:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Chaotic Enby Would you mind uploading a ribbon-only SVG for the Vector 2022 skin? Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:24, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  

  I can do that! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:34, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Wrong one, sorry!

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:37, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

thanks! Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe at least for the wordmark we could have it be just black text on white ribbon? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support with speedy close because the front page says we're already at 7,002,039 articles -- I'm partial to the File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en-gold.-7-million.svg logo for a couple weeks, because of Mz7's concern. Cramulator (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

  Ehhh, I really dislike that design. I would rather the ribbon text be illegible than adopting a yellow Wikipedia logo with font that looks like we're back in the 90s (lol). Mz7 (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support for a week, as a tradition that shines a positive light on Wikipedia's progress. I prefer the ribbon style, with Chaotic Enby's version as first choice for its SVG format, but I would rather see any commemorative logo implemented than to have this discussion deadlocked any further. — Newslinger talk 11:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose In favour of Wikipedia celebrating quality over quantity. Why should we strive to i-don't-know-how-many stubs without serious content? The Banner talk 19:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support Will there be baseball caps and t shirts? (I take a size large.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support. It is still a notable achievement. We won't have a perfect encyclopedia where each and every article is GA-grade until the Sun burns out, but I think we can certainly celebrate 7 million articles. It is a good way to communicate to casual readers about the number of articles that Wikipedia had. SunDawn (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Support: Certainly worth celebrating BlueClouds (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment The pink one is nice, but looks like the cover of an O'Reilly book. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC).
  
• Support fun times. The "quality over quantity" argument is specious. Only 7 million things for the entire history of the universe are found to be notable? Our quantity is on the low end. Furthermore it infers nothing about quality, they are not mutually exclusive traits. -- GreenC 01:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Anyone admin up for closing this thread now? The milestone is quickly getting stale. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Posted at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Logo change, let's see if anyone's interested. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:11, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• I know I just changed my vote in a defeatist posture, but if somebody still thinks this is going to happen, then an enterprising soul needs to quickly crop a square svg of the appropriate logo, such that it meets the requirements of Meta:Requesting_wiki_configuration_changes#Changing_a_wiki's_logo. Remember, Vector 2022 uses a different logo set. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  I thought Chaotic Enby put something together at File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en-7m.svg? CMD (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's not square. Look at the main page on Vector 2022 real quick and see how the logo is oriented. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:40, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  The square ones are in the revision history. CMD (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

  

  To clarify, I did resize it to be square at one point, but the MediaWiki documentation did mention that there were exceptions to the "square rule" if the logo had text underneath (in which case 135x155px seemed appropriate). The square thing appears to be for the logo alone (without text) in new skins like Vector 2022, and I just uploaded it separately. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Half a million of those articles or so should probably be deleted or merged. A number is not an achievement. Reywas92^Talk 18:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, creating three URLs with 200 words each shouldn't be treated as superior to creating one URL with 600 words. It's already hard enough to maintain quality control without telling people that having the first edit in the article history is somehow more meaningful. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:14, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose A large chunk of new articles these days are WP:CORPSPAM, and that is a major cottage industry with rather limited tools to fight it, so celebrating articles purely based on sheer quantity rather than quality adds fuel to what is already a raging forest fire. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Pushing thousands of stubs that will never be improved isn't something bro celebrate. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:56, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Logo change - Implementation details

There appears to be consensus for this. Do we know which of the multiple proposed logos we should use? Do we know how many days the altered logo should be up for? Once details like these are decided, myself or someone can write a patch using the procedure at meta:Requesting wiki configuration changes#Changing a wiki's logo. We shouldn't wait too long though. This thread is already getting kind of stale, and we are drifting away from the 7 million achievement with each passing day. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

There's heavy enough opposition there should probably be more than a glib statement that there is consensus. I'd like to see a more formal close. Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd say this whole 7 mil milestone stuff is getting stale now. Once the main page banner gets taken down, we're beating a dead horse with this logo change, imo. Some1 (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I came here with the intention of closing this discussion, but after reading it I have some strong thoughts and am not going to supervote. Perhaps the below will be useful when we get close to eight million.

1. There should have been a hard time limit set for the end of the RfC.
2. There should have been an agreed-upon design ready to go. That first design is, with apologies to its creator, not good. It looks more like a price tag than the professional logo you'd expect from the world's largest encyclopedia. No one should be surprised by/angry with those early concerns/opposes.
3. There should have been an agreed-upon amount of time that the logo would have been live, or at least one proposed in the OP.
4. Even though there's something like 2:1 support in the raw number count above, I can't help but wonder how many people who !voted early would now agree with CaptainEek and others who are saying "it's too late"... because it is. As I write this, it's nearly two weeks late. Shame on us, frankly. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:56, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. We could probably take the main page banner down now; it's been up for a good while. Better luck in 6 years or so. Mz7 (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

We could already get the next steps ready for the next GA or FA milestone, as they might come much sooner than 8 mil articles (and put more emphasis on quality). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:13, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Note, the Template:Main Page banner has been taken down, ran for ~2 weeks. Seems like the logo proposal is a bit outdated now. Such changes should be planned out at least a month in advance. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:03, 12 June 2025 (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.

There is an RfC on the new temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi all - not sure whether this is possible but it would be nice. I see a lot of latitude and longitude coordinates given to impossibly precise levels of accuracy - buildings and structures given with coordinates like 41.572947546321°N, 125.462903749248°W. While I like accuracy, this pinpoints a building to within 1/1000 of a micrometre - which is probably overkill. Is there anyway of automatically truncating such precision to, say, six decomal places? That would still give precision within about 20 centimetres, which is close enough for any practical coordinate purposes. (PS, I'd prefer if they were all in ° ' ", but that's probably just me and not worth doing). Grutness...wha? 03:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

pinpoints a building to within 1/1000 of a micrometre - which is probably overkill Have ye so little faith in modern architecture?^{[just kidding]} Sdkb ^talk 06:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It's the fault of whoever added it like that and you are welcome to change it. It's hard to do automatically, though, since the proper precision depends on the size of the thing that is being located. A building is worth more digits than a river, etc. Maybe a bot could be written for certain types of articles that the bot can recognise, but I'm not sure it would have few enough false positives. Zero^talk 07:33, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Most of these will be copied directly from services like Google Maps which displays the location you click to 5 decimal places but puts about 15 decimal places on the clipboard. e.g. on it's minimum zoom level I got 51.23262708044534, 0.23095125460548796 despite 1 pixel making tens of kilometres of difference at that latitude.

The first step to fixing over-precision is to identify the scale of the issue. For example get a bot to list all the articles with coordinates more precise than 6 decimal digits (or the equivalent in DMS). There is likely to be some way of cross-referencing articles with Wikidata to group them by the "instance of" property. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

https://xkcd.com/2170/ seems relevant here. Anomie⚔ 11:16, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I see there was a suggestion at Template talk:Coord/Archive 14#Decimal degree rounding to allow for rounding on display, while still having higher-resolution inputs to {{coord}} to allow for checking against UGS - no outcome, alas. MOS:COORDINATES gives rough guidance, Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Precision guidelines is more, err, precise. NebY (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

My thought would have been to trim down some overly-precise examples and leave an edit summary referring to WP:OPCOORD or the coord template documentation. When other editors see it some may take note and make similar edits. However, the guideline seems a bit technical and I suspect that some editors would find it easier to understand "If it's the same size as a football field use X level of precision" - perhaps it would be helpful if OPCOORD also included a precision/object conversion chart equivalent to the xkcd table. EdwardUK (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree, a simple easy to understand table, although perhaps we have fewer rows than the xkcd one. CMD (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Ideally yes, but rows need to be worded carefully. Going back to the structure example earlier, there are some bridges that have a rather extreme length dimension, however we are still going to want coordinates that are within its width dimensions and approximately midway down the length. 184.152.65.118 (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@EdwardUK: the guideline seems a bit technical and WP:COORDPREC was created to address exactly that. It's just below OPCOORD. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:03, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

That is also rather technical and suggests that there is no suitable precision for an object ~100m in size located further than ~37° from the equator. Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how it could be less technical. It's closely analogous to a Blackjack strategy quick-reference card, which any teenager could handle. It's a simple two-dimensional table lookup, eliminating the need for any arithmetic; the arithmetic was done when the tables were created. Does an editor need help determining that 35 is closer to 30 than to 45? Or 35.41899175, even? If so, maybe coordinates aren't a good place to spend their efforts. Coordinates are all about numbers. (Most likely, the editor is working on coordinates because they like numbers. We rarely like numbers unless we're good with numbers. I speak from experience, as that's why I spent multiple years of my life working with Wikipedia coordinates.)

there is no suitable precision for an object ~100m in size located further than ~37° from the equator. Sorry, I don't follow. That precision will be d° m' s.s" or d° m' s", depending on how much further than 37° from the equator. Or, in the other format, d.dddd. Both are derived from the tables at OPCOORD, like the rest of COORDPREC.

Regarding coordinates, like so many other things, we need to beware of overthink, of over-engineering. Perfect is the enemy of good. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Re the suitable precision argument, if d° m' s.s" is suitable why is it coloured red in the table? I interpret red to mean that that precision should not be used for objects of that scale at that latitude. If that interpretation is right, then there are several combinations of scale and latitude where no suitable precision exists (e.g. 50m above ~37°, 100m below 57°, 10km at any latitude). If my interpretation is wrong then the table needs a key or some other explanation of what the colours actually mean. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The colours appear to be meaningless, and are used only to differentiate between each level of precision - it should be possible to change them to something else that does not suggest yes/no in the way green/red can do. EdwardUK (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The colors improve the aesthetics, and that's important. Colors make the tables more inviting, less intimidating. But that's secondary to the usability enhancement. With an all-white table, it would be significantly more difficult to see minor differences between cells on the same row. That's why the Blackjack strategy quick-reference card uses colors in a similar way.

I'm not married to red and green. Any two complementary pastels would do, and that could easily be changed lest a user looks at the tables and sees traffic lights. (Or they could just read the instructions above the tables. The tables are derived from those at OPCOORD only if the instructions are followed.) ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I think it would work better if each level of precision had its own colour across rows, so the overall table would resemble a topographical plot. isaacl (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Four different colors for the dms table and six for the decimal table? Struggling to see the improvement. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:33, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The colours would have an independent meaning easier to intuit. That being said, the change to two colours with higher contrast helps in creating visual diagonal bands, also tying the same precision levels together across rows. isaacl (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I changed them to blue/green as neither carries a connotation of "incorrect", does that work for you? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:05, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

That's less confusing in one way, but I only know that the colours are there to distinguish the different precisions. This needs to be noted in the key to the table. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Added! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I was about to say that we also need to avoid putting "meaning" into coordinates where the meaning is known only to Wikipedia editors. Then I realized that's exactly what we're doing with any kind of variable coordinates precision. How many readers will find and read this discussion, COORDPREC, or any other guideline, do you think? One has to wonder who's benefiting, and how. Is coordinates precision just a fun exercise for Wikipedia editors who like numbers? Is it a case of the aforementioned over-engineering? Should we sack OPCOORD and COORDPREC in favor of some fixed precision, in a rare simplification of Wikipedia editing? Perhaps coordinates need re-imagining, but that's a different discussion (scope expansion bad). Or, perhaps this is an appropriate place for that discussion; I see comments below moving in that direction.

In my opinion, it's about time for a new subsection containing a specific proposal for standard precision (both decimal and dms). I'm not inclined to create one, but I would !vote in it. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 01:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for watching my thinking evolve in real time. I hate it when that happens. I should throw it all away and start over with a clean sheet of paper, but I'm damned if I'm going to discard the product of all the effort I put into it. Sue me. :D And, if standard precision fails, COORDPREC is my fallback position. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

The OP's suggestion is good. I don't think we have anything on Wikipedia that warrants precision to less than 20 centimetres, so a bot could easily truncate to 6 decimal places. Articles where lower precision is needed (such as cities or countries) can be taken care of manually. Let's not let the best be the enemy of the good. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

If we have a reliable source that cites the coordinates to greater precision than that we should keep them. I sort-of remember Geni mentioning that this is the case for some museum exhibits. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikivoyage imports ("copies", not "dynamically transcludes") coordinate data from Wikidata when it's available. Wikidata stores the lat/long data as degrees/hours/minutes (12° 3' 45"). Wikivoyage uses the decimal format (12.345). One result of the automated conversion is that I've seen a few that look like "12.34500001". This is false precision. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Smallest object with coordinates is DeYoung Red Diamond although the Strawn-Wagner Diamond is smaller still if anyone is looking to beat that.©Geni (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

There must be articles on smaller objects, but I don't know that latitude and longitude would be appropriate. Are there any articles on individual electrons? I guess not, because they are indistinguishable particles, but we can work up from there. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Smallest individual items with articles are cosmic rays (Oh-My-God particle and Amaterasu particle) but we have no idea where they currently are.©Geni (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

From my layman's knowledge of quantum mechanics I would say that they don't exist any more, having been destroyed by the process of detection. I may be wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

They still exist in the Many-worlds interpretation of Wickepedia ;-) -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 10:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

There's the Myojin parakaryote, but I'm sure someone can beat that. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Four Corners is a point, with no dimensions of length or width. BD2412 T 01:18, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

However since the Four Corners is defined by the location of the Four Corners Monument things like continental drift and thermal expansion means its location can be only so exact.©Geni (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that even with objects as small as the Strawn-Wagner Diamond, 20cm is likely close enough - unless we want to go around altering the coordinates every time the cabinet is dusted! Even then, 7 digits would put it within an inch. We don't need anything listed to 12 digits unless we start getting articles about specific atoms, and they vibrate so... that way lies madness. Grutness...wha? 12:33, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, especially since most GPS systems are only reliable to a level of about 3 m/10 ft. More than four digits is dicey, and more than five is like reading a 19th century recipe, seeing that it calls for "one pat of butter", and weighing your butter out to the tenth of a gram. The resulting 4.7 grams of butter isn't a wrong answer, but "about five or so" would have been fine, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Also agreed.

Even if we assumed for the sake of argument that objects on museum display at this sort of size (or even slightly larger, such as the Ain Sakhri figurine or Aineta aryballos in the British Museum) can have their locations known with precision to the millimeter, and assuming for the sake of argument that their locations remain consistent to the millimeter over the medium-to-long term: how frequently do readers need to know the location of such an object more precisely than to the nearest foot?

Even if these coordinates were actually accurate to twelve decimal points I can't see any real downside to automatically truncating to six d.p.; given that we can be almost certain that they are not in fact that accurate there is at least some benefit in not conveying false precision with little to no downside that I can concieve of. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah going down to a inch is the point where you hit the problem that most things don't stay that still in the medium term.©Geni (talk) 06:52, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Apparently the United States Geological Survey is more precise, but I don't know why – reluctance to shed data, tracking minute movements of tectonic plates, identifying particularly beautiful dirt? NebY (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

If you do not know why a source uses a given precision (regardless of what that precision is) then it is completely inappropriate to say that it is more or less precise than is necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I can imagine the UGSS having good reasons and I don't think it's inappropriate to mention a couple of possibilities, but I'm not saying it's either more or less precise than necessary for their purposes or ours. NebY (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Today's xkcd. Donald Albury 17:12, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Wow, I really needed explainxkcd for that one. Not so much because it was obscure, but because I read it as "a hundred and ten thousand years ago". --Trovatore (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

In articles I've been working on where I need to give the coordinate of a major building or natural feature, I've been using maps to get the coordinates from the approximate center of the area (in decimal form rather minutes-seconds), then rounding that to about three decimal places, making sure to double-check that the rounded figure still designates the right place. I might be able to justify four, but unless it's something pretty precise, it's overkill to use more than that. For a large area, I might round it to even fewer decimal places. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Per my comments above, it does not serve readers to put "meaning" into coordinates when the meaning is known only to Wikipedia editors. That is useless to readers unless they find, read, and understand the applicable Wikipedia guideline(s). It does, however, cost a lot of editor time in determining appropriate precision and discussing how to do so.

Ultimately, coordinates simply provide a way to position a location pointer in a mapping facility such as Google Maps. Mapping facilities do not currently have any way to show the size of the object based on the coordinates precision.

I propose "standard precision" of d° m' s.s" (dms) and d.ddddd° (decimal) d° m' s.ss" (dms) and d.dddddd° (decimal). Per WP:COORDPREC, these precisions would work for objects as small as around ten meters. For even smaller objects, they would place the map pointer within perhaps five meters of the object centers one meter, which is easily close enough for the needs of Wikipedia readers.

As with any guideline, there would remain room for exceptions, though I can't think of an exception that wouldn't ascribe "hidden" meaning known only to Wikipedia editors. editors. Well, here's one: We might use a smaller (shorter) precision when space is greatly constrained.

A bot could be created to convert coordinates to standard precision, but that's a separate and independent question. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC) Edited after early discussion, tweaking the proposal. 04:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is already covered by MOS:UNCERTAINTY.
• Oppose as a blanket rule. We should not be using a different precision to that found in reliable sources, which can be more accurate than those obtained from online mapping sources. Whether the precision given in the source is accurate to that level of precision and/or appropriate to the relevant object is something that can only be determined in the context of both source and article so is completely inappropriate for a high-level guideline. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  We would be free to take coordinates from a reliable source and adjust the precision to our standard. Many sources, including GNIS IIRC, use the same arbitrary precision for everything. Thus, they don't ascribe meaning and neither should we. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 13:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  However many sources do use different precisions with meaning, and it would be inappropriate for us to differ from that. My objection is not to removing excessive precision where justified, it is to the blanket treating of all precision greater than d° m' s.s" or d.ddddd° as excessive. If there is a valid reason to differ from a reliable source, that needs to be explained in the context of both the article and the source, regardless of how or why we are differing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  But you're still ascribing hidden meaning. As with any Wikipedia editing, focus should be solely on reader benefit. Few readers are going to guess that greater precision means smaller object. Few readers will notice the differences at all; those few will very likely assume it's a matter of editors' personal preferences. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  No I'm not ascribing hidden meaning, I'm accurately reflecting the meaning used by the reliable source I'm using to verify the content. Anything else would be applying my own interpretation not accurately reflecting the reliable source. If there is a good reason to do that, and it's plausible there might be, then I need to be able to explain that in the context of both the article and the source - it is entirely inappropriate to do that at a higher level. Thryduulf (talk) 14:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, you are ascribing hidden meaning; you're simply taking the source's hidden meaning and plugging it into Wikipedia articles. Precision adjustment does not violate WP:V any more than style changes. It would violate V if we modified the coordinates in a way other than precision. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  You assume that every source has "hidden meaning", which is simply not true. Everything else you say follows on from that fallacy. Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I think we already agreed that GNIS uses the same precision for everything. That means no hidden meaning, so I'm hardly assuming that every source has it. Maybe you could restate your comment in a way that says what you mean to say. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  We didn't agree that (you stated it, I didn't comment on it), and the GNIS is not the only source for coordinates. Thryduulf (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as blanket rule. 10 meters will easily distinguish between two office buildings. It wouldn't distinguish between two notable sculptures in a park. My rule-of-thumb for precision is "if you change the last digit one up or down and you're still on the object, and you change the next-to-last and you leave the object, you're set." I think I "violated" that rule once for the UMaine Campus, where three directions left it on, and the fourth moved just outside, but close enough so that you could see it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  10 meters will easily distinguish between two office buildings. In that case, up the standard precisions one level, increasing the precisions by a factor of 10. Same concept, but your objection now addressed. Would one meter not be close enough for our readers' needs? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  For clarity, I have edited the proposal as per my preceding comment. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:45, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Anything unreasonable can be edited out. My main reason is wp:creep. But also the "can locate" rationale is not a good one to make the decision on. An extra digit beyond the known precision minimizes unnecessary contribution of an error to the number by the display/rounding process. North8000 (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  CREEP?? This would delete both WP:OPCOORD and WP:COORDPREC and replace them with one sentence: "Generally, Wikipedia articles use a standard precision of [x] (dms format) or [y] (decimal format)." I believe that's the opposite of CREEP. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 16:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  The precision guidelines also say in one sentence: "A general rule is to give precisions approximately one-tenth the size of the object, unless there is a clear reason for additional precision." I don't see anything else that would be deleted except that sentence. Dege31 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  The entirety of OPCOORD and COORDPREC, which are all about how to vary precision, which is what the proposed change would eliminate. The whole point is that precision need not and should not be varied. It's a simple cost vs benefit analysis, giving equal thought to both sides of the weight scale. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  The whole point is that precision need not and should not be varied I fundamentally disagree with this. Appropriate precision is a combination of scale of the object and precision available in reliable sources - one size does not and can not fit all uses. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly. The coordinates for Plymouth Rock and the United States SHOULD NOT have the same precision. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Even saying the words fit all uses shows that you still haven't grasped the "hidden meaning" concept (speaking of "fallacy"). Please confront my point directly, show me the error of my ways. Explain how readers can divine any meaning that is described nowhere readily accessible to them. We are writing this encyclopedia for readers, not for ourselves—something too often forgotten. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know how to explain to you any differently than the multiple ways I've explained things already, so I'll leave it up to someone else to try. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  As a bystander so far, may I suggest that saying you still haven't grasped the "hidden meaning" concept doesn't really work? "Hidden meaning" is a phrase you've introduced and it doesn't seem that anyone else finds it powerful or perhaps even understands quite what your point is and why you think it so powerful. Myself, I think of the rounding of other quantities (e.g. distances, money) which we do quite casually with some sort of proportionality, and the only "hidden meaning" I can imagine would be the implication that if we don't round the cents and millimetres, they're important. Which is probably not your point. NebY (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I coined a phrase for efficiency of communication. Shame on me?

  "Hidden meaning" is when meaning is known only to Wikipedia editors. One meaning known only to Wikipedia editors: Greater precision signifies smaller object. I'm somewhat patiently awaiting refutation of my point. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 19:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  OK, thanks. "Greater precision signifies smaller X" seems to me to be a corollary of rounding appropriately, and one to which that most readers will be fully accustomed, even if as writers they don't confidently apply all the rules of significant figures. It would be bad communication to go against that and start writing $12,345,000.01 or 15.0001 km if we didn't want to suggest rather strongly that the smallest parts were significant. Or to use "hidden meaning", it would be bad communication to always use the same precision with a "hidden meaning" or footnote that "the precision with which we state values does not imply that the precision has any significance". NebY (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  start writing $12,345,000.01 or 15.0001 km - False comparison, IMO. Coordinates differ in function: they generate a map pointer that looks the same for all precisions (among a few other, less-commonly-used functions). This is the only meaning available to readers, and it needs no explanation (assuming a new reader isn't afraid to click on a coordinates link just once, just to see what happens; some ability and willingness to explore is assumed). You click on a coordinates pair and you are presented with a "menu" of things we can do with it. The main one is to produce a map with a pointer. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 21:57, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  Producing a map pointer might be the most prominent way Wikipedia uses coordinates at present. We can't assume it's all that readers use coordinates for, and you write that Wikipedia uses them for a few other, less-commonly-used functions. We shouldn't provide data that's apparently more precise than our sources to readers who will be unaware of that and who may be using the data in ways of which we are unaware, or present anyone within Wikipedia working on those "less-commonly-used functions" or any future ones with falsely precise data. Still, thanks for the clarifications, not least the statement below. NebY (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  To be clear, if a source gives us four decimal positions, I have no problem with appending zeroes to extend it to six dp's. Again, that would matter only to Wikipedia editors, and only some of them. I also have no problem with rounding eight positions to six. I note that the "What's here" function of Google Maps provides six dp's.

  This ain't a perfect solution, but none exists; any pursuit of perfection is a wild goose chase in this case. It's merely better than any alternative, all things fairly considered. Editors here appear to be looking at only one side of the cost-benefit equation. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 22:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  If that is Madruss' point, then to put my argument in the same terms cents and millimetres are sometimes important so a guideline saying that we should always round to the nearest metre or nearest dollar is inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  I said wp:creep because it creates a new guideline which is to a partial extent a new rule. (I mentioned this in combination with in essence saying that it's not really needed). Your response asserted that it is not creep because it might replace lengthier ideas at a wikiproject. A wikiproject is not a guideline or policy so it's still creating a new guideline. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

  A distinction without a difference, in my opinion. WP:OPCOORD and WP:COORDPREC may not be guidelines, strictly speaking, but they are sure being used like guidelines (I did so often for years). What do you suppose the shortcuts are for? Instinctively wanting site-wide coherence, editors seek guidance and we'll take it where we can get it. We're not overly concerned about organizational boundaries. We don't really care what the guidance is, as long as it has community consensus. If we have strong feelings against the community consensus, we may challenge it; until the challenge is successful, we comply with the existing guidance. Such centralized guidance is the only way to get most editors on the same page, and therefore the only path to site-wide coherence. Ergo, the CREEP principle also encompasses OPCOORD and COORDPREC.

  CREEP applies when the added site-wide coherence is not worth the cost in space and complexity. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 04:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I ask the proposer, and supporters, to explain how this is superior to the WikiProject Geographical coordinates suggestion. Why not make that the guideline? Dege31 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

  What WikiProject Geographical coordinates suggestion are you referring to? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose this removal of proportionality and its replacement with false precision unsupported by sources, to the confusion and frustration of readers and editors using our content in ways not considered at the time of this proposal (or considered and dismissed). NebY (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
• opposeI work with two classes of subjects (lighthouses and towns) and I use the precision provided by the sources. For the lighthouses this is down to thousands of seconds; for the towns GNIS gives only seconds, which even then is questionably precise in practice. I see no reason to override those values, and the one standard is not appropriate to the other circumstance. The light of a lighthouse is on the order of less than a meter in size; even the smallest town is a hundred times less precisely located. I would agree that it is reasonable to put some sort of a limit on precision, but context matters here and the best we can say overall is that when you get down to the centimeter level, you're talking about locations for which continental drift is a factor even in the short term, so we probably shouldn't go that low. But a uniform standard precision for all sorts of locations is a bad idea, particularly since few things or places we can locate to the pricision of a navigational aid.Mangoe (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Türk Söylence Sözlüğü - Deniz Karakurt

 – More appropriate location for discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There have been many edit wars over a single box in an infobox, or a word, or perhaps a paragraph. One notable one is the nearly 2 decade Caesar salad edit war which involved hundreds of editors editing one infobox and changing the origin location to either be Mexican or Italian. The article was protected an uncountably amount of times, likely stopping good faith contributions that otherwise would have made it through. There are other examples, though less notable to Wikipedia. Wikimedia devs should implement object based protection where individual parts of an article can be protected. Admins should have the ability to protect certain infoboxes from being edited. Admins should also have the ability to protect images, sound files, templates, and parts of an article (e.g. on this page, admins can protect the thread "RFC on new temporary account IP viewer (TAIV) user right", only allowing it to be edited by WP:XC users, but still allowing autoconfirmed users to comment on the thread "Finishing WP:LUGSTUBS2"). This allows editors to edit non controversial parts of an article while the parts that are controversial are edited by only good faith editors. 135.180.128.228 (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

While the idea is interesting, this is something that should be implemented into the MediaWiki software itself, and can't really be done otherwise. The closest thing that is technically possible is to have, say, the infobox be invoked from a template (which is done on some pages) and have it on another protection level, but nothing would prevent users from replacing the template entirely.

If implemented, this could be especially relevant on topics such as WP:PIA, where some articles only have sections that are relevant to it, but are either unprotected or protected as a whole. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I said that in the original suggestion, "Wikimedia devs should implement..." in the 4th line. I know Wikipedia is ran on Wikimedia software and thus regular admins, bureaucrats, or stewards can't change it. And for how long Wikipedia has been around, I too am surprised that no one suggested this type of protection before. 135.180.128.228 (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Noted, although I should clarify that this page is intended for concrete on-wiki proposals and, while a good place to gauge consensus for it, might not be the place to work out the technical aspect of the implementation (which would be necessary for it to go forward). It might in fact not be very straightforward to implement it, as Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Allow watchlisting individual sections of a page mentions a similar technical difficulty. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The key challenge is that the underlying representation for a MediaWiki page is wikitext, which is designed to be directly edited by humans and easily manipulated by text processing tools. This means there is no inherent concept of subobjects of a page. (Section-based editing and the discussion reply tool are in essence user interface features overlaid on top of the page-based representation model.) Implementing a finer-grained protection model in a way that you discussed would probably require replacing the wikitext editor with one that had access controls managing access to page components. It would be a lot of work, and not only affect editors who currently use the wikitext editor, but also all tools that parse it. I don't believe this is feasible in practice. (On a side note, proposals like this have been made before.) isaacl (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I have noticed that almost all of the pages for Norse/Germanic deity do not have an Infobox. it also seems that everytime someone tries to add an infobox it is quickly removed, and almost every major Norse/Germanic deity has a section on their talk page (or an archive of the talk page) about a Infobox added and removed at some point.

The Infobox is a very useful tool present on pages for deities in almost every other pantheon and reading Wikipedia is much easier if there is an infobox to read for quick information. the Deity Infobox Template even has a parameter specifically for old Norse names. so I just don't get why some users who work on Germanic mythology pages are so opposed to infoboxs. PharaohCrab (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Do the talkpage sections you found not explain why there is opposition? If there is existing discussion it would be helpful to link when raising the topic. That said, this may not be the right place unless you have a specific proposal. CMD (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

if not here then where? PharaohCrab (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There might be an active WikiProject covering the articles you are looking at, sometimes presence/absence discussions have taken place at WT:MOSINFOBOX. If you are workshopping a potential proposal, then WP:Village pump (idea lab). CMD (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

There's no consensus to recommend the use of infoboxes for particular kinds of articles (see WP:RECOMMENDIBRFC for that 2024 discussion, which also has a handy table of discussions in 2021–2024 and refers to infoboxes being a contentious topic). From experience on articles about Greek and Roman deities, it's quite understandable that there's opposition to having them on Norse and Germanic ones, but best not wander into the specifics here. NebY (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It's quickly removed because this would be a terrible idea. The problem is that this "quick information" would almost certainly be wrong. Infobox fields work best for non-controversial facts like birthdates, offices held, people involved, etc. But the conception of these deities changed over time, and their older forms have knowledge basically based on speculation from surviving fragments that mention them where 10 different scholars have 11 different opinions. It'd be a perfect formula for well-meaning editors to add information that is superficially sourcable but deeply misleading. SnowFire (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

sure, there are a lot of disagreements about Germanic deities but for most there are at least a few things that can be confirmed and more impotently, pages for every other pantheon have a infobox, even some with just as many controversy's PharaohCrab (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing particularly 'important' about articles on other subjects having infoboxes. Not giving over-simplistic and potentially misleading 'info' to readers, on the other hand, is important. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

You can consider yourself one of today's lucky 10,000 for learning something: no, there aren't non-controversial facts safe for the infobox. Questions as simple as what is their name are contested. Even questions like "is this reference to this name in this work and this reference to to the same name later in the work referring to the same entity, or different ones, or a composite character" aren't clear (i.e. "is this 'Bragi' Bragi or Bragi Boddason"). SnowFire (talk) 17:55, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced, if the deites name is literally the title it is clearly fine to add to a infobox, even if it isn't you can just add a note or to something the "other names" section, what makes something uncontroversial enough to add to the page itself but not the infobox? and one the honeytrap argument brought up by@NebY, can't you just add some Hidden text letting editors know to be caution in adding to the infobox? I no longer am arguing that they should have infoboxs because no matter how right I think I am, I know I wont be able to convince enough people. but I still don't really understand why so many think that a Infobox shouldn't be used in this one specific case only. PharaohCrab (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Hidden text has no authority and is often ignored. NebY (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCONTENT for "pages for every other pantheon" and consider instead that the infoboxes for Greek and Roman deities are a powerful example of the problems described by Snowfire. Once placed, infoboxes are not protected; any parameter can be edited, not just the few things the infobox's creator thinks can be confirmed. The infoboxes become honeytraps for well-meaning new editors eager to contribute by filling in empty parameters, switching images and extending the sparse contents without regard for or perhaps any awareness of WP:V or MOS:IBP. Those new editors are then repeatedly reverted, making their first edits a painful experience and potentially deterring them from ever editing again. The project pays a high price for such infoboxes. NebY (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I feel like the appropriate venue for this is WikiProject Mythology and WikiProject Norse history and culture Dege31 (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

A welcome message for new editors whose initial efforts have been reverted is desired. The point is to encourage them to not become not become frustrated. Good faith edits are helpful even when rejected as they make promote further discussion and other improvements. Encourage them to reach out to the editor who reverted them if they need further explanation. Usually that is the editor that is welcoming them. There are no dumb questions. Constant314 (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome templates:

• {{Welcome-suboptimal}}
• {{Welcome-anon-suboptimal}}
• {{Welcometest}}
• {{Welcome-unregistered-test}}
• {{Welcome-unconstructive}}
• {{Welcome-unregistered-unconstructive}}

Also, all of the Level 1 and single-level warnings at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace are worded fairly cordially and are used very often. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

@Constant314, see Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee/Welcome_templates#Specialized. Most address specific issues with the edit. For general good-faith edits that miss the mark, I like Template:Welcome-suboptimal and have added it to my Twinkle menu as a custom welcome. Schazjmd (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, but "suboptimal" seems judgmental. Is there a way to bring this up directly with the welcoming committee? Constant314 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

The word "suboptimal" doesn't appear in the text and the template should be substituted so I'm not sure what your concern is.

It looks like you use Twinkle for rollbacking and welcoming. Open your Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences § welcome and add whatever you want to the option "Custom welcome templates to display". Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 16:57, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the Twinkle tip. Constant314 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

What is wrong with being judgmental? Sometimes it is necessary to tell someone that their efforts are "suboptimal" or worse. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I choose to not be so. Constant314 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

For all kinds of edits? There is a spectrum of problem edits ranging from vandalism that must be removed and oversighted all the way up to meaningless cosmetic changes that do no real harm, but use up editors' time to review them. Do you choose not to notify/warn the user about any of those edits? If you do choose to warn or notify about some edits, where do you draw the line? We cannot ignore edits that degrade the encyclopedia to any degree, and we need to let users know when their edits reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. Donald Albury 00:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

For all kinds of edits?

Of course not. Constant314 (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I'm going to remove this page from my watchlist now. Kindly ping me if there are more comments. Constant314 (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Sex, Gender and X (or "Look what I found under the carpet")

 – Raladic (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I was just browsing some articles and ended up at Sex differences in humans and got rather confused why as the lead of the article appears to have a specific scope in the sexual differences in human physiology based on the lead text, but there was another separate article of Sex differences in human physiology and I ended up in one hornets nest of a mess that was created a long time ago and went unnoticed due to moves and counter-moves, splits, merges and more splits, including history that was entirely forgotten about in the middle which caused another manual split and a whole lot of article renaming that was actually just wrong in many cases, given the content of the articles.

Hold on to your socks as I take you on the journey through time:

• In 2007 the article Sex differences (history) was split into two articles by Lara bran - Sex differences in humans (split) and Gender difference (split) respectively to separate the purely human physiological differences from the social gender ones (see Talk:Gender_difference#split_article for the split moment - split content)
• Then in 2011, it looks like Aronoel didn't realize the intention of the split from 2007 that Sex differences in humans was supposed to be about the physiological parts and Gender difference about the sociological ones and interpreted them as being POV forks (see Talk:Gender_difference#Concerned_about_possible_POV_fork discussion to that effect) and they then moved some content to Gender role, Sex differences in humans and a slew of other articles (see this for reference of the other targets) respectively and then hard redirected the article of Gender difference to Sex differences in humans (which in turn means that the entire article history, and more importantly the Talk page existence of Talk:Gender difference got forgotten since it was no longer an article and unless editors were active since then (or ended up in a wild goose chase that I just was on), would have no idea to even check there
• This is precisely what happened and in 2013 Neelix who had no idea of the entire history of this, given that it was now buried at Talk:Gender difference, which was merely a redirect, and wasn't aware of all the previous context. They then unilaterally created a new POV split (POV split) when they moved Sex differences in humans to Sex differences in human physiology, and creating a new duplicate fork of Gender difference's original intent of talking about the social gender aspects of gender by manually adding social aspects to the now blanked page at Sex differences in humans (here) - while also conflating the terms and just using sex for everything, regardless of what it was about.
• The same user then also went and renamed a LOT of articles that were "Gender topic X" to "Sex differences in X" even though most of these articles talked about the social gender differences. Some select examples of the mess:
  • Gender and education became Sex differences in education (move)
  • Gender and crime became Sex differences in crime (move)
  • Gender and suicide became Sex differences in suicide (move)
  • Gender and religion became Sex differences in religion (move)
  • Sex and psychology became Sex differences in psychology (move) - This one in particular has a whole story of its own as the article at the time discussed a mix of gender and sex aspects after a previous merge of Sex and intelligence and Sex and emotion in 2011 (move) into Sex and psychology), which subsequently had content split out again in a split in 2014 into Sex differences in intelligence (since at that point the whole mess of moves that imposed all the articles at the moment being "Sex differences in X" from 2013 had already happened and no one realized that this caused conflation of Gender and Sex articles respectively)
  • and several more
• Some of these articles were fixed again through various means over time
  • Sex differences in suicide (orig. Gender and suicide) was corrected and moved further to Gender differences in suicide by CoeA a month later (move)
  • Sex differences in religion (orig. Gender and religion) was moved back to Gender and religion in 2016 following a RM (move)

So where does that leave us? In an interesting. The user that created the mess at the center of most of this in 2013 has since been blocked as a sockpuppeteer, but the mess is done and went unnoticed in scope. Some articles have been moved back into correct titles (like the two above), but many are not and should be moved to correct titles if they're talking about the social gender construct (such as education which should go back to Gender and education and so on).

The article Gender role grew in parallel to the other article since the time it received a bunch of the content in 2011 and has some unique content, but also and has several overlaps in content with Sex differences in humans (though the Gender role article explains many of the sections in greater detail), given that the Sex differences in humans article isn't actually exclusively about the physiological differences that had been moved to Sex differences in human physiology, but actually is really about Sex and/or gender differences (as the sections and sub-articles make clear of being quite the mix), but the overlap also wasn't as clear as some sections were pointing to old redirects.

There is also the mess of the manual split from 2013 of Sex differences in humans not containing the history of Gender difference, which leaves an attribution fork as the article incorrectly appears to be novel content without history attribution when some of the content actually came from Gender difference, so a WP:HISTMERGE of Sex differences in humans and Gender difference (and their respective Talk pages) is needed as well to fix this.

Before we have a bunch of distributed RM's/RMTR's/Bold moves of the sub-articles to accurately title each based on their actual topic they discuss, I wanted to raise the whole issue in its entirety so that there's a reference point of both the history that happened as the linkage of what came from where and went to where and then to where is fragmented and just placing a histmerge tag on the two central articles doesn't quite seem to fit this situation (especially since it has a somewhat long history).

Here's my proposal to address and unravel the situation:

• An admin HISTMERGES Sex differences in humans and Gender difference
• The merged article becomes Sex and gender differences in humans, which should become a WP:BCA to explain that there are some differences, some of which may have physiological and some more sociological aspects of gender and sex, and provides a high level entry-point to Sex differences in human physiology, Gender role and the sub-servient sub-articles
• The community decides whether we want WP:CHIMERA articles to sub-breakdown things, like having a Gender differences in humans sister-article for those articles that are exclusively gender related, or if the BCA should be the only center point
• The template Template:Sex differences gets similarly corrected into "Template:Sex and gender differences" for accuracy and consistency, as it already is that and has some articles on sex and some on gender differences and some on both
• The community reviews existing articles in the area to rename them as appropriate to be either:
  • "Gender differences in X" (If the focus is gender)
  • "Sex differences in X" (if the focus is purely physiological)
  • "Sex and gender differences in X" (if the focus is a mix of both)
  • "Gender and X" (if "differences in" doesn't fit as well, such as the religion article)
  • "Sex and X"
  • "Sex, gender and X"
  • or a handful of other names-as appropriate for more case-by-case article names (like Gender disparities in health, Gender and emotional expression, Sexual jealousy..) that can just stay where they are

I hope my explanation of what happened, my recommendation for a path forward and all are cohesive. Please let me know what you think. Raladic (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Before we continue, I must point out that physiology (function) is different from anatomy (structure) and very much of the Sex differences in human physiology article is actually about anatomy, not physiology. For example, the sections "Size and body shape", most of "Skeleton and muscular system", and nearly all of "Respiratory system" I would consider to be anatomy, not physiology. Since the anatomical differences are inextricably linked with physiological differences, this article ought to be merged elsewhere or renamed (perhaps to "Sex differences in human anatomy and physiology"). (I suppose we could try to split it into an article for anatomy and an article for physiology, but that would be difficult and painful.) Toadspike [Talk] 07:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

It's complicated. Microanatomy is sometimes lumped with physiology, and P&A is sometimes taught as a single course. It may not be appropriate to blindly follow the lead of academia, but I believe that it is appropriate whether to separate them. -- ~ ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chatul (talk • contribs) 09:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. If you try to separate this into individual RM discussion, though, I wonder if you'll run into problems with people on both sides of the political issue who don't want to acknowledge a distinction between "sex" and "gender". Anomie⚔ 11:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Gender is a grammatical concept. Is German politically incorrect because it has three genders? What about languages that have more than three?

It's not our job to judge what happens among consenting adults. What matters is what you can document in a RS, not who approves or disapproves. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

In current English-speaking (and particularly US) society, gender as a grammatical concept is far from anyone's focus. "Gender and sexuality" is a contentious topic here for completely different reasons. Anomie⚔ 12:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Gender as a sociological concept and grammatical gender are two different things entirely (e.g. Mädchen). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

(1) Let's leave linguistic gender out of it, because it's got nothing to do with either social gender constructs or the biology of sex-determination and sexual dimorphism. (2) Let's lump anatomy and physiology together because they're interlinked and both controlled/determined by the pathways that dictate biological sex. (3) Grouping our articles to make it clear when we're talking about biology, when we're talking about sociology, and when we're dealing with the intersection of both, makes a lot of sense. I have no particularly strong feelings on the vocabulary used to do so. (4) Does Wikipedia have some sort of equivalent of a "sticky note", that can be eternally stuck prominently at the top of talk-pages on articles like this, explaining why they have the title and scope that they have, to avoid well-meaning editors creating similar chaos in future? (5) Please forgive me if I've written something contentious in a contentious area; I have no wish to hurt anyone on gender-related issues. Elemimele (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd struggle to imagine a less controversial comment, FWIW. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:12, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

AIUI, a less controversial comment would omit the words biological sex. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey, If a policy/guideline needs to be updated, what is the proper process according to Wikipedia guidelines? Should changes be made directly (Be Bold), or should they first be discussed on the talk page? Is it necessary to ask the community to vote on the changes (support/oppose)? What is the most appropriate way to handle this? I’m not looking to change any policy; I just want to know the correct procedure. Regards Riad Salih (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, while you can technically be bold, it is much better to propose it on the talk page to make sure that it has consensus (as otherwise it might quickly get reverted by anyone who disagrees with the change). If it's a major change, you can use the {{rfc}} template to get broader discussion (and/or link it here or at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)), but if it's a smaller change, discussing it on the talk page is enough. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

We are allowed to make BOLD edits to policy/guideline pages, but it is strongly preferred that we discuss first.

A minor tweak (say a grammar correction) probably does not need prior discussion, a major change definitely does (and keep in mind that, sometimes, what one editor thinks is a minor tweak another editor will see as a major change). When in doubt, discuss first. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

If you are unsure then it's best to err on the side of more discussion. Nobody is going to bite your head off if you opt for a talk page discussion when you could have made the change boldly. Also if you opt for a talk page discussion people will tell you if the change has to be made via RFC or advertised at a village pump. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

If you're going to be bold, it's important to be transparent, for example leaving word on the talk page what you intend. Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

@Riad Salih, please read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions § File:Cooper-Kong.jpg

 – Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

We had consensus at WP:LUGSTUBS2 way back in March 2024 to draftify a bunch of articles, which was never implemented. Is it finally time to implement it now? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes! 3df (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I concur here, this should be implemented per the community consensus. Let'srun (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's time to just implement it. The things people are discussing below were just suggestions by the closer, not part of the consensus; the key point is that the articles should not be left in mainspace, and even the gentle suggestion by the closer (which was in no way part of the close or consensus, and is in no way binding the way the requirement to remove them from mainspace is) has been met, since more than enough time has passed for people to review any articles that they believe were salvageable. Further steps forward can be determined after that part is implemented, but constantly re-litigating a settled RFC is inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

The closing statement by @HJ Mitchell says, in part:

"However, I would urge the proposers not to charge headlong into the draftification process without further thought. A lot of people are uncomfortable with the large number of articles—a list of 1200 people from different eras and different nations is very difficult for humans to parse and I would urge the proponents to break it down into smaller lists by nationality, era, or any other criteria requested by editors who wish to evaluate subsets of articles. I would also urge care to ensure that the only articles draftified are those which clearly meet the criteria outlined, even if that takes longer or even considerably longer—we won't fix mass editing without due care by mass editing without due care. There is merit in the idea of a templated warning being applied to the articles before draftification takes place and in a dedicated maintenance category to give interested editors a chance to review. To that I would add a suggestion to check for any articles that exist in other language versions of Wikipedia."

What's your plan for breaking down the lists, avoiding more "mass editing [including draftifying] without due care", and adding warning templates in advance? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

We've left them for a year. If people want to correct the drafts before they're deleted, they are free to. JayCubby 21:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you break it down into smaller lists by nationality, era, or any other criteria requested by editors who wish to evaluate subsets of articles? Or is it your idea that this part of the closing summary has magically expired because it wasn't done by your WP:DEADLINE? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Have any editors requested to evaluate subsets? How have they progressed or not? CMD (talk) 14:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@CMD WAID at least has requested that multiple times. The closing summary implicitly rejected it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, I ask as the quote WAID posted explicitly states it. Could you link to which criteria were requested? CMD (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Nationality and era at least, per the closing summary. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

That group is all cricket stubs, so I think that nationality (and therefore language) is going to be the key division. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The closing summary gives them as examples to be requested by editors who wish to evaluate subsets. Are there editors who wish to evaluate subsets, and have they requested these? CMD (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Well that's good news. Could you as I asked earlier link to the requests? CMD (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, why? Secondly, the discussion that was closed with the summary quoted above, this discussion, and probably other discussions in between the two.

If that is not enough for you, please take this as formal request to break down the list into smaller lists by era and nationality. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Because that's what the close is looking for in quite plain language? It's a quite late request, but if you genuinely want to look through them I'll give you a couple. CMD (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I really don't understand why this is like pulling teeth? Yes, this is a genuine request to do what has been requested multiple times by multiple people in multiple discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It is very hard to take that last claim seriously as you refuse to provide any links. Anyway, here are some to start you off. CMD (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, finally, for the lists but I don't understand why you need explicit links to the discussion we are currently having and a link to the original being referenced many times. The Australian list alone has 170 entries (which is still really too large for managability, hence the requests for nationality and era), so it's going to take a long while to do a Propper search on just them (and I'm just about to go to bed). Please be patient and remember that this could have started over a year ago now. Thryduulf (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't need links to the current discussion or the original discussion. I was asking for links to what the close asked for, for people to request specific divisions. If they didn't happen then please stop insisting they did. If the request were not made, that has nothing to do with me. I was barely involved in the prior discussion. CMD (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

The "finally" is quite a particularly perplexing comment, these lists were produced less than a day after the first request. CMD (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. As the Indian group is the largest, I've left a note at the Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. The other lists should also be sent to other suitable groups. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

That was explicitly framed as a suggestion by the closer, not as part of the consensus. It has no weight or force whatsoever. --Aquillion (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I noticed this added up to 957 and there were 1,106 on the original list. The missing ones and their nationalities are below Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, they've had more than a year at this point. Time enough. Plus they have more than a half-decade before they are actually deleted. JayCubby 15:09, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@JayCubby - There is WP:NORUSH KatoKungLee (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

So? It is not up to those who don't think there is a need to delete/draftify the articles en-mass to work out which ones those who do believe that is a desirable course of action are referring to, let alone without the latter group having done what was explicitly noted as a prerequisite to deletion/draftification. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Jay, I agree: You've had more than a year at this point to follow the directions in the closing summary and break it down into smaller lists by nationality, era, or any other criteria requested by editors who wish to evaluate subsets of articles. Time enough? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Something should be done. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

What something consistent with the close are you proposing? Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I would support draftify-ing those articles sooner rather than later, especially before Wikipedia reaches the 7 million articles mark. Some1 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Can I point out that there's a talk page for this at Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list. I've already gone through a bunch of these articles, mainly New Zealanders, to suggest those that might be kept, those are, in my view, a merge – which retains the page history and is a valid WP:ATD – and those that might be deleted. Some have been improved. I've not gotten to all of them by any means. But that's somewhere that anyone about to make any of these a draft needs to have a look at first please. I've not done any work on these lists for a while as it's so time consuming and I'm not sure when I'll get a chance to look again, but a clear procedure for reviewing these was put in place. Ta Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

e2a: a quick look through the British and New Zealand ones suggests all are either keeps or redirects – I note a number that have had suitable sourcing added and some with suitable levels of detail, other than the ones that I'd worked through. I imagine the same is true of the Australians as well – an ATD will be available on almost every case if they haven't has sourcing added. I'm not entirely sure that the original list is really that valid from the POV of these subsets if I'm honest. It's certainly not a job that I would like to automate based on the list as it exists Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, please. The Village pump is not a good place to post these lists. Anomie⚔ 11:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

As an update:

• I've gone through the British list at Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list#British list and made recommendations for all of them. There are 12 or so which I think could be worked up. I've listed these at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket in case anyone has an interest
• I'm working through the New Zealanders – 70+ done. There's an interim list at User:Blue Square Thing/sandbox3#NZ. Once I'm done (a few weeks I imagine – I have 22 left) I'll push that list to the same talk page as above
• At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket The-Pope has broken down the Australian list into state teams, which is really helpful. But these will take a while to get through

Those are the three where sourcing is easiest to come across, so it's easiest to deal with those first Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The instructions on the {{Special draft pending}} tag say that when sources have been added, the tag shouldn't be removed (why?), but instead the article should be listed at Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list for review.

However, so far, over the course of the last year, almost 200 articles have been individually reviewed and listed there (either with a recommendation to redirect or with sources), and this work has been ignored. The editor who wrote these instructions is no longer editing.

Should we:

1. Tell people to just remove the tags when they redirect or add sources? (This would require re-generating the list.)
2. Tell them to remove the tag and to remove the entry from Wikipedia:Lugstubs 2 list?
3. Find some volunteers who will actually follow up on the chosen process? (I believe the process was boldly made up by one editor; I've seen no evidence of discussion, much less consensus.)

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I really don't know what is the most effective way to do this. I can see the benefit to removing them as someone works on articles, but it involves removing them from two places. There certainly seems to be evidence that articles have been worked on without notes left on the talk page, so I'm not sure it's reliable to ask people to remove from two places.

It makes sense to redirect as we go though. Ultimately this is a human task – unless there's a really clever way to do it, I don't think it can be automated due to the need to redirect a huge number of the articles – in the original discussion I estimated 75% were redirects

On that subject, there was some discussion about the best way to do the draft/redirect process. MY gut feeling is that it's redundant to send articles to draft, have someone bring the article back to mainspace, and then redirect the article – the draft isn't deleted automatically and that creates more overheads. I think. A straight redirect is better I think

But it's difficult to do this when the tags are still on the articles, I agree. I would have started to do that last March, but for the process that was put in place... It will, fwiw, take some time Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

If people pulled the template off the page when redirecting/improving, then we should be able to combine (e.g., with grep) the original list against the list of pages that transclude the template, to find which ones are still in need of work/eligible for being moved to the Draft: space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

If that works then it's something that sounds sensible. But we'll obviously need to get the template message changed first Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Changing the template message just involves going to Template:Special draft pending and clicking the [Edit] button. However, I don't know how the opponents of these articles would feel about that. What if somebody adds a source and removes the tag, but they think the added source isn't good enough to justify keeping the article in the mainspace? They might prefer more bureaucracy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I've now managed to work through all the British and New Zealand articles. Of the 50 British ones, seven need to be removed from the list as sources have been added, and the other 43 are probably redirects – although a number of them (at least 12) have significant possibilities (i.e. I know that if I could expend the time on them that they'd almost certainly have sources added). Of the 89 New Zealanders, one needs to be drafted, 40 have had sources added, and 48 can be redirected (with strong possibilities for 10 or so at least). The detail is at Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list. I'm about to start on the Zimbabweans.

Perhaps someone could let me know what they'd like me to do next? There's a list of 1,106. A great many of them will be redirects or drafts, but at the minute the note added to the top of each page stops me doing anything very much to those articles – one Charles Chapman (cricketer, born 1860) (British but not appearing on the British list for some reason) has been merged with Charles Chapman (rugby union) as they were the same person, but the article still appears on the original list. I have no idea what an automated attempt at this process would do to an article like that, but I can't imagine that any automated process will work, I can't remove the list, I don't think I'm allowed to redirect them, and I'm pretty certain I'm not supposed to remove them from the list.

So, what next? Other than leave it another year and talk about it then if people prefer. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, let's ping the people who wanted this work done: @Pppery, @3df, @JayCubby, @Let'srun, @Mrfoogles: You all asked above for someone else to do this work for you. It's being done. How do you want the procedural bits to be handled? If you don't care, please say so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I'm annoyed by the fact that we had a lengthy discussion that came to a consensus to do something, and then didn't do it, and that we've had articles that have been allegedly pending being moved into draft space for years. I don't care much more about the procedure than that we get out of that state. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

So if BST removes the tags for the ones they think shouldn't be draftified, and pulls them off the list, then you're okay with that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Which says nothing about what anyone else is okay with, of course. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, I tried to support it being done if someone wanted to do it. To be honest, I don't completely understand the situation, but if it helps I think the ones that @Blue Square Thing describes as probably redirects should probably be redirected? Or if the draft tags don't allow that, drafted. Enough time has gone by in my opinion if they're still unsourced -- don't know whether there was an already-fixed timeline?

If I'm understanding this correctly, I think we should just let people go through and draftify/redirect them all (except the sourced ones), removing the tags. If there are some that sources could be found for, well, new pages can always be created later with the sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

None of these are unsourced articles. The ones on this list were chosen because they:

1. were created by an editor who fell out of favor with the community, and
2. are sourced (only) to specific websites.

The tag was boldly created by an editor and suggests a new/unprecedented process that, e.g., claims that redirecting an article to a suitable list would still leave that redirect subject to draftification and eventual deletion. I suspect that his intention was to personally review any article that others thought was eligible to be left in the mainspace. However, he has since stopped editing, so we can't ask him how he thought this would work out in practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that you have to know where to redirect them to. Which is slightly tricky. Sometimes lists don't exist, which means we draft; sometimes you need to choose a list from options, which is OK but tricky. I can start to do that, but it takes time and is slightly difficult as it tends to rely on having accessed to a paywalled source. But it needs doing – the current situation is starting to get silly and I share the exasperation of Pppery because I could already have dealt with a couple of hundred of these

At least four have already been sent to draft and then the draft deleted. I thought the process we have here guaranteed that they wouldn't be deleted from draft space for five years? (from memory) That doesn't appear to be happening – for whatever reason Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

They were probably deleted because the people who wanted to delete these didn't set up the procedures correctly. We can ask for a WP:REFUND for those four. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

They were probably just draftified independently of the RfC without putting the tag on them.

What about just draftifying everything you (or others) haven't already redirected or otherwise exempted via introducing IRS SIGCOV, then you can get started on deciding which other pages to redirect/exempt from within draft space? JoelleJay (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I was/am interested in working on this myself – I didn’t mean to imply with my comment that it’s somebody else’s problem. 3df (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

I concur with Pppery here. Let'srun (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Any that have not already been individually assessed as probably meeting notability criteria (or as being redirectable) should just be draftified. The whole point of their getting privileged draftification treatment was so that interested editors had 10x time to trawl through these articles after they were removed from mainspace: I find that there is a rough consensus in favour of the proposal, and a stronger consensus that they should not be left in mainspace. They don't get to hang around indefinitely in mainspace just because the same editors who staunchly opposed the consensus neglected to show any interest in the non-mandatory close recommendation of making more discretized lists (which are supposed to make it easier for the post-draftified articles to be parsed, not as a way for one editor to adopt a set beforehand and delay its articles' draftification by claiming they "need more time" to run through them individually). We most definitely do not need a second RfC to ratify the first one, and a year is more than enough for any editors who cared to ensure draftification is only applied to eligible articles. The rate-limiting step here cannot be the inaction of the same editors opposing draftification, that would completely defeat the consensus to remove these from mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

The rate-limiting step appears to be the inaction of the editors supporting draftification.

The immediate question here is, for the (small?) subset that has "already been individually assessed as probably meeting notability criteria (or as being redirectable)", how do we stop them from wrongly getting dumped in the Draft: namespace?

This would be a stupid process:

1. BilledMammal puts a page on his list of pages to dump in the Draft: namespace.
2. Alice reviews one. She decides that it does not meet the GNG and redirects it to a List of Olympic athletes from Ruritania.
3. Bob draftifies everything on the original list, including Alice's new redirect.
4. Chris un-draftifies the redirect, because it's stupid to have a redirect in the Draft: space when Alice has already determined that this athlete doesn't appear to qualify for a separate, stand-alone article and has already redirected it.

What's a non-stupid process that will actually work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

...What are you talking about? We remove them from the draftification list, then draftify the list. JoelleJay (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

So your suggested process is:

1. Redirect the article or add suitable sources.
2. Remove the tag that says "do not remove the tag, as this may not prevent draftification".
3. Remove the article's name from Wikipedia:Lugstubs 2 list.
4. Eventually, someone (who?) will move anything that's left on the list to the Draft: namespace.

Right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we should mark all of these with Template:Old prod as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

No. I am saying any that are already redirected or clearly ineligible can be removed from the list, any that are not are draftified NOW by an admin, per the consensus that these stubs should not remain in mainspace. The accidental draftification of false-positives is of minuscule concern: editors have 5 more years to go through them. JoelleJay (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Why the rush? As @HJ Mitchell pointed out in the close, it is more important to get it right than to do it quickly. There are currently multiple people actively working out what doing it right means. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I wonder whether the auto-deletion process in the Draft: space has been modified to accommodate this five-year timespan. I suspect that the answer is "no". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

One year is not "doing it quickly". If the editors who believed certain articles ought to be exempted just never bothered to address those articles, then that's too bad for them: there was a consensus to remove the articles from mainspace and into a protected draftspace where they could be worked on, and a stronger consensus not to leave them around in mainspace for some indefinite length of time while some editors maybe work on some selection of them. You and WAID contributed like 50 comments in the RfC unsuccessfully trying to kill the proposal, now you're trying to do the same thing to its implementation. At some point this just becomes disruptive. JoelleJay (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Please read this entire discussion where all your complaints have been fully addressed and/or rebutted multiple times. I'm not trying to kill it's implementation, I'm trying to ensure that the damage to the project is minimised by ensuring that the due care the closer found consensus for is actually applied. If that takes longer than you want, then I'm sorry but the community wanted due care rather than haste. Thryduulf (talk) 03:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Yet the consensus was that it is more damaging to the project that these articles remain in mainspace, and it certainly did not include your definition of "due care". JoelleJay (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Instead of talking about hypothetical "editors who believed certain articles ought to be exempted just never bothered to address those articles, then that's too bad for them", how about we talk about "the editors who did address those articles, and who are addressing those articles, and who have been addressing those articles for over a year now, but who have been told that they're not allowed to take the tag off or remove the articles from the list"?

This process has been badly designed, with incomplete documentation, instructions that contradict normal practices, no tools to separate these drafts with their RFC-mandated five-year time period in the Draft: space from the ordinary six-month G13 process, and an implicit dependence on an editor who is not editing any longer. One goal (i.e., boldly redirect articles that editors believe won't qualify) is simple and straightforward under normal circumstances, but it's being stymied by editors who are trying to follow the directions they've been handed, because the tag says nobody's allowed to remove it.

If we want to move forward on this, then we need to figure out things like how (e.g.,) Liz and Explicit identify Draft: pages that are eligible for G13 deletion, and how they could not have their systems screwed up by these pages, which aren't eligible for five years.

We need to get this right. I've no sympathy for people who ignored this for the last year and a half, but now that we've been reminded about it, they think it's an emergency. People have been posting on the designated talk page for well over a year, and their questions and comments have been ignored by you and everyone else who just wants these pages gone. If you don't choose to help, then that's fine, but the result is that sorting out this process is going to take longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The bot SDZeroBot lists pending draft deletions on its subpages User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon and User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon sorting. It ignores all drafts tagged with {{Special draft}} for five years. ✗plicit 05:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

How does it determine the date for tagged pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The other way in which G13s are found is via User:DreamRimmer bot II. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:31, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. @DreamRimmer, is your bot already set up to handle this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: My bot already ignores all drafts in the Category:All drafts subject to special procedures. – DreamRimmer ■ 17:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Hang on, we were explicitly told not to remove the hatnote and not to redirect. That was supposed to be handled sensibly – multiple reassurances were given at the original RfC and since. If someone were to draft all those with the hatnote remaining, you'd send articles which obviously meet the GNG to draft – there are hundreds that either were in the original process or that need to removed from the list – almost 50% of the New Zealanders for example. That would, in my view, be likely to be used as an argument against any future mass-draftification of articles. Any support that I was able to give to the original RfC was based entirely on the assurances received that redirects would be handled sensibly. I imagine I would feel I had been lied to if they were simply all drafted without any consideration for the process that I've been working my arse off on for periods of the last year Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The proposal says

If this proposal is successful: All articles on the list will be draftified, subject to the provisions below: [...]

• Any draft (whether in draftspace, userspace, or WikiProject space) can be returned to mainspace when it contains sources that plausibly meet WP:GNG[d]
• Editors may return drafts to mainspace for the sole purpose of redirecting/merging them to an appropriate article, if they believe that doing so is in the best interest of the encyclopedia[e]

I imagine any resistance to removing hatnotes or redirecting would be due to concerns the article would just be recreated from the redirect without undergoing scrutiny for GNG and without having the hatnote returned. Maybe it would be helpful to have a hidden category for redirects from this list and/or a talkpage banner noting they were originally part of LUGSTUBS2 on them as well as on any pages that are returned to mainspace as GNG-compliant. Anyway, I don't see why we can't just draftify the pages that haven't been worked on by you guys (or that you have found non-notable), while separately addressing redirection/removing hatnotes for those that remain. JoelleJay (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

A talk page banner might be more helpful – cats can get deleted easily.

In terms of what to draft and when, it would be more efficient to redirect first where a redirection is possible. In some subsets, this is nearly all articles; in other subsets it will be fewer. It would be possible to work fairly quickly through those I think – over the last day or so I've reviewed all 170 articles on the Australian list. 147 of those can be redirected in the first instance (a number having strong possibilities); 23 need to be kept. None need to be drafted. Of the 89 New Zealanders, one needs to go to draft. The others are all redirects or to be removed from the list and kept. The same won't be true of Pakistanis, for example, where there are a lot fewer lists for redirection.

I'm not entirely sure how it would be possible to identify those that have been worked on btw. I've come across some today which other people worked up but haven't left a note anywhere about Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The practical reason why we can't just draftify the pages that haven't been worked on by you guys (or that you have found non-notable) is because you don't actually know which ones haven't been worked on.

I think that an Old prod tag is the best way to flag that history. Use the |nomreason= parameter to link to WP:LUGSTUBS2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

The ones that can be redirected can be put in a new list, removed from the original list, and a banner put on their talk pages. The ones that BST et al have determined should be kept can likewise be put in another list and a banner put on their talk pages. The ones that others have since worked on but which have not been actively endorsed as demonstrably meeting SPORTCRIT can be moved to draft alongside all the other eligible pages for the individualized attention that the community decided should take place in draftspace. JoelleJay (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense. The banners are a good idea – who will create them? Can I check:

a) that we're talking about dealing with the list at WP:Lugstubs 2 list (1,106) – these are the ones that were tagged with the hatnote? This is not the same list as the one at WP:LUGSTUBS2] (1,182). I can't remember why they're different – I think everyone on the first list is on the second one. From memory I think the query was re-run and some came off it. They had probably been improved to the extent that they dropped off the list

b) where would you like me to create the lists? Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list is a bit of a mess because I've stuck so much stuff on there and the lists that are on there are messy as well

c) I think the original idea was to re-run the query again first to remove the ones that would have fallen off the list. I wouldn't have a clue how to do that. Is that something someone could do? It might save a bit of time and effort

Once we have the banners made and an idea about where to create the lists, we're good to start moving on this I think. Is it worth discussing a formal timeframe? Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Whichever is the most recent agreed-upon list should be used. We can run a new query on it, then look over any pages that no longer qualify through the query to make sure their disqualification is legitimate. I think the three new lists (redirectable, likely notable, all remaining eligible stubs) can just be put in a new talk page section. I don't know anything about making banners or running quarry queries; perhaps @Pppery has background or knows editors who do? JoelleJay (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I have some familiarity with Quarry queries, but it's not clear to me what is being asked for right now. Or, one you have a clear request, you can ask at WP:RAQ (although that's largely a single-person operation too). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the intent is to just run the same query as before on the current list to see if any other names now need to be removed? JoelleJay (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I think that would be best. It would also be best to actually deal with the ones that have been sorted out before re-running the list. Do you have a link to the query?

I'm going to go edit Template:Special draft pending, and I'll add some instructions to the top of Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list. Please check those (i.e., in half an hour) and see if that reflects what we have been talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could use Special:WhatLinksHere on the template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I looked pretty hard and could not find the exact query BilledMammal used to generate the list at WP:LUGSTUBS2, but it seems to be a close variation on https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/73984 (the pre-saved results almost but don't quite match the list there). It's probably better to rely on the list as saved rather than trying to reverse-engineer it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm 99% certain that the list at WP:Lugstubs 2 list is the list that had the template added to it. I know of at least two articles where editors have removed the template, but that list hasn't been edited since BilledMammal put it there, so it should be reliable Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

One of the inefficiencies in Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list#2025 procedure is that, for redirecting non-notable subjects, I think we need to remove the template from the page and the name from the list. But if we are reasonably certain that everything on the list got tagged with the template, I'd love to simplify this to "anything still transcluding the template is getting moved" (after a reasonable but short pause to get those known-non-notable subjects redirected). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

I've only found two without the template, and I've looked at getting on to 750 of the articles over the last week. If at all possible it would be better to use those using the template (the other two have easily good enough sourcing I think – Alexander Cracroft Wilson and Chamindu Wickramasinghe) and then conduct a check with the quarry query afterwards or run through and check them some other way. There doesn't seem to have been any mucking around with the list other than the three (not four) which were drafted early and have since been moved back to mainspace e2a: a look at the number of articles with the template, shows that there are six more somewhere where it's been removed. I'll sort out which at some point by comparing the lists Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Lugstubs 2 list#2025 procedure. Note that it's instructions, not a signed comment, so you're free to update it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we specify mid (or late) June – my life is complex over the next fortnight :-) I won't do anything until this is generally agreed on btw Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Could be July, if you'd like. I picked next month because it'd be nice to have this resolved already, but Wikipedia:There is no deadline – just a target. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

23 June. That goes everyone a month. If it goes a bit further than that then fine, but a deadline in this case is probabyla good diea to stop me from prevaricating Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I've updated the directions to state that date. I've also removed instructions to edit the list itself. We can use the templates themselves to track it. (I assume nobody's spammed the template into other articles; if my assumption is invalid, then we'll have to check the list.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I've done "a test edit" for one of the names you mentioned at the talk page. Please check this edit and let me know if that looks right to you. In particular, I've left the categories in place and added a {{R to list entry}} tag. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I actually managed to do some myself yesterday morning (the Auckland redirects), but had a ridiculous day at work so wasn't able to leave a note here. It sees to work, although it's slightly trickier that I thought – need to remove the class rating from the talk page and the circular redirect from the list as well. I also added R with possibilities to the ones I did as they're ones that I think have that. Oh, and in some cases we can redirect to a section...

It would be better if we could re-run the querry that BilledMammal used in the fist instance as there are 400+ articles I've not managed to check – the Sri Lankans and Indians. But if we can't do that, I think this is the best option Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

AIUI the WikiProject banner figures out redirects automatically, so you can ignore those. We should be able to get a bot or an AWB run to handle the circular redirects. (Surely we have a bot that can do this?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I've started more work on these – it's just the class on the redirect talk page that I'm slightly worried about.

The special draft pending template still says to remove people from the list. Do we actually want to do that or does the template need changing to remove that? Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing, ignore the class on the redirect's talk page. A while ago, we updated Module:WikiProject banner to auto-detect redirects and ignore whatever the banner incorrectly claims the class is. Eventually, a bot will remove it (but it's basically a WP:COSMETICBOT edit, so it won't happen quickly).

Don't bother removing people from the list. I'll update the template to say that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Here's a potentially useful option. Many of these articles have a see also section with a link to a list. One potential solution is that if the article still meets the criteria (which will need to rechecked obvs) and if it contains such a link, it gets redirected to the list that's linked; if multiple lists are linked someone tells me and I sort it out (this is rare fwiw)

Fwiw I rather think this has been a lot more complex than everyone expected it would be. I did start working on this in March 2024, after the list was finalised. The original rfc included multiple assurances that redirects would be dealt with sensibly. I think we can do that, but I'm waiting to be told how to do it Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree that if there is a clear and obvious redirect target then redirecting there is far more appropriate than draftspace for the article, as per WP:ATD. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

This can be done just as easily after the articles are draftified. JoelleJay (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it could be. It would mean that the draft article would stay as well however, which is inefficient from a storage post of view. It would involve double the work involved, as rather than simply redirecting the articles I'd have to move them back and then redirect them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

But wouldn't you have to do such move for any articles you end up working on in draftspace anyway? Moving to mainspace and then redirecting is just one more trivial step than what was already expected to happen if this RfC got implemented. JoelleJay (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Given the numbers of articles that will end up as redirects – as above, of the 170 Australians, 23 are keepers right now and the other 147 are all redirects; not a single draft – it would be a lot more efficient for me to just have to do the redirects. I have them sorted in teams anyway, so the redirection notice will essentially be the same. Given that I've ploughed through all of those over the last 28 hours, I don't see why I couldn't manage the redirection process over a similar sort of timeframe for those 170. Having to bring back from draft first, more than doubles the time it would take – I'd have to do all the drafts first to keep the note I'd need to place in the reason box and then go through and do all the redirects by team afterwards. That's really adding to the work – all of it by hand. From a technical efficiency perspective, it must also be better to not have absolutely unnecessary drafts kicking around for five years either. All I need is for someone to work out exactly what process to go through and to have a bunch of people agree it. I'm not sure how long it would take to do work through the full 1,100 and come up with a list to draft, but it wouldn't be that long so long as I'm in the country and able to work at it Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:15, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to redirect most of, if not all of the remaining articles as well, unless I am missing something here? Let'srun (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

We don't always have lists to redirect to – so, for Afghan cricketers, for example, I don't believe there's a suitable list. I've managed to redirect the New Zealanders who need redirecting and have started to remove tags from those I think we should keep, but it's a slightly complex process to do by hand. It will take a little time to get it done right Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

This process is now under way. I'm focussing on removing tags and redirecting. It takes a long time and all has to be done by hand. If anyone can figure out a way to automate any or all of the process it would really help. In particular, I've stopped doing anything to the talk pages – it's just taking so long. Thanks to all the people who have been cleaning them up, but if there were an automated way to do this it would really, really help matters. I'm aware that I'm leaving work for other people to do in the short term. I will try and return to the talk pages if I can do, but sorting out the articles seems like a sensible priority in the relatively little time I'll have to do this

I've not had time to even look at the Indian or Sri Lankan list if anyone wants to help out Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the fact that redirecting was not actually easy was the entire reason why draftification was chosen in the first place. Frankly, I favoured just straight deleting them and if there's a WP:LUGSTUBS3 that will get my !vote. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The assurance that redirection would be handled automatically was the only reason I was able to give any support to the original proposal. Unfortunately BilledMammal is away for at least most of the rest of this year otherwise that might have happened. I appreciate that people wanted to punish Lugnuts by removed their articles entirely, but there are clear ATDs in many cases and redirection would have almost certainly been the result of AfD discussions in the cases where there are realistic ATDs. So I'll keep going. If you could look through the 200+ Indian articles and see if any have had loads of sources added it'd help massively. Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The reason why I prefer straight deleting is because recreation of the content worth keeping (which is minimal) is way easier and cleaner. Redirects are cheap... to create... FOARP (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, are we redirecting the ones with no substantial edits, or draftifying them? Taking the first on the Indian list, C. R. Mohite, since they were an Umpire what is the redirect target supposed to be? List of Baroda cricketers? But then is it even verified that he played for Baroda rather than just coming from there? Draftify looks like a way easier option.

BTW to me this was never about "punishing" Lugnuts. This was about saving editor time vs a massive time sink with minimal value-creation that was negligently dumped on us. FOARP (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I've redirect the first ten in the list, none of which had any source but ESPNCricinfo and so were straight-forward NSPORTS fails. FOARP (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for doing what you're doing there. I really appreciate anything that anyone else does to help this process. The key is to find the small number of articles where sources have already been added and that need to be removed. Then redirecting.

Yes, redirect to wherever is most obvious – any that cause significant problems shout and I can check on CricketArchive, which is paywalled unless you know the way around it – so Mohite played 25 matches for Baroda, but the redirect you have is just as good.

Redirects, for me, have other advantages. They make re-creation of the article as a duplicate more difficult and retain cross-wiki links (Mohite is linked from multiple pages, for example). Drafting removes those. Eventually we might get notes added to articles – like on List of Otago representative cricketers for example – which summarise careers and so on. The problem, of course, is that that takes time. More clarity over the process from the get go and a set of lists organised in some way are all things that would make that easier if we do this again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, we should just delete these articles and save ourselves the time, and then use the time save to create real articles. But if redirecting is how we're resolving the issue right in front of us today then that's how we're resolving it. I'll do the others in the India list after work. FOARP (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate anything that you can do with these. I'd be interested in knowing if any had been worked up by someone or the tags removed Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

None of the first ten anyway. For all the protestations that time was needed, in reality no-one was doing anything nor was there any obvious signs of the intent to do anything. Even if it wasn't intended, the effect of this was simply to suspend the decision for a year with no obvious improvement. FOARP (talk) 08:52, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think having them sorted into lists of countries **really** helps. Knowing what sort of sources are available for each country does as well. It would be better to present future lists by country (preferably by team); I think it's much more likely that the process gets done better and quicker if we can do that. Shorter lists will help as well – give me 50 New Zealanders and I can tell you what needs to happen to them within a few weeks. BilledMammal largely not being here to shepherd the process obviously hasn't helped fwiw Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

CricketArchive, which is paywalled unless you know the way around it

Is there an easier way than inspect>sources>refresh>pause load? That's how I've been doing it the last few years. JoelleJay (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Hitting Esc quick enough also works I believe. Or if you can still find it, I have Opera 12 installed - the last update before they moved the browser to Chromium I think. For some reason it ignores the redirects to the paywall. Obviously it's years out of date now, but it's the only thing I use it for and it seems to work Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)