Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

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

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

Before commenting, note:

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

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

« Archives, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59

Resources on severe mental illness pages

For example, on the pages for “Eating Disorders” and “Anorexia Nervosa” include a section about what hotlines and organizations are available for eating disorder treatment in predominantly English-speaking countries. It’s very likely that struggling individuals may come to wikipedia to learn more about what they’re dealing with, and how someone can access information about treatment is objectively relevant to the topic. Ju1c3machine (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm often one to call out "that's not what Wikipedia is for", but I actually agree. Considering it purely from the perspective of building an encyclopedia, treatment and how people seek it is a legitimate aspect of its coverage, and an article is incomplete without it. I'd also say that these sort of resources are relevant external links that would be appropriate to include at the bottom of their article—maybe even in their own subsection under external links if applicable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Might be worth perusing a recent (2022) discussion on adding suicide hotline numbers to related articles, as it seems pertinent. Link to discussion Schazjmd (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

One question is, who would be responsible/liable if a reader suffers harm from following a no-longer valid or malicious link from such a page? That is why we have disclaimers on pages about medical topics. Donald Albury 23:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

If a link becomes invalid, how is that any different from other links being caught and updated by editors? Wiki isn't providing services so there's no liability issues- same as if the Yellow Pages contained a hotline that went out of order. Ju1c3machine (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

How does one decide which organisations are worthy of having their hotlines mentioned? There are far too many organisations for these issues to include all of them and having to subjectively decide on them is bound to cause more problems than it is worth. Where would you even include it either, anywhere near the top would cause issues with those who simply want to read an article and if they're at the bottom they'd be quite useless. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

For Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, it would be possible to be comprehensive. A list of several hundred short items is not unreasonable.

Within an article, editors should use the ordinary methods of determining article content. For example, what was the first or most historically important service? "____ became the first charity to offer helpline services via SMS texting" is appropriate encyclopedic content.

Second, once you look outside the suicide/crisis category, there are often very few of these services. For example, the US appears to have three hotlines for eating disorders: two general ones, and one specifically for insulin-dependent diabetics. That's it. The UK appears to have one. It would not be difficult to construct a sentence that says something like "In the UK, free support services, such as a helpline, are offered by the charity Beat". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There are more than 50 English speaking countries. Also having to choose which services are mentioned by name is obviously problematic, especially if it isn't already summarised in a secondary source. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

There are only about 35 countries where English is the main language spoken, and most of them do not have any hotlines or other specialized resources for people with eating disorders. For example, Grenada in an English-speaking country, and the way you decide whether to mention Grenada's eating disorder group is: You can't, because they don't have one. They don't even appear to have a suicide crisis hotline. List of suicide crisis lines attempts to be comprehensive, and we only have about half the countries listed.

I really don't think that controlling the amount of content will be that hard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

section break 1, mental health topic

Personally, when seeing this, I was curious what other encyclopedias that exist in part/whole online do regarding this, so I went to a few to check. Let me preface this by saying I don't think it's a valid comparison to compare Wikipedia to a print encyclopedia for something like this, because we aren't ever complete and that's okay in part because we are online and perpetually being improved and updated. My opinion and analysis of policies/guidelines is after the list:

• Encyclopedia Brittanica - suicide suicide resource box on the side of the page, depression (psychology) crisis information within the first paragraph, no information on article "bipolar disorder", no information on article "schizophrenia".
• Encyclopedia.com - suicide basics discusses suicide hotlines existing but no specific links/numbers, depression again discusses their existence, and recommends checking "telephone books' [...] Community Service sections [... or] calling emergency services (911 in most places) but this is at the bottom of this long page. Has an article on "crisis intervention" that doesn't list specifics or how to find. Nothing on article "substance abuse". Of note, however, is that some of these articles have "resources" sections that do list specific phone numbers and/or websites for organizations providing hotlines.
• The Canadian Encyclopedia - suicide info at top of article, mental health nothing in article, but links to a couple hotlines in the external links section at bottom of page, Suicide among Indigenous Peoples in Canada info at top of article.

The biggest issue people have with us including them is "scope" or similar. These arguments necessarily reference what Wikipedia is not - either directly or through essays/etc. Relevant policies, guidelines, and essays that have been referenced before or likely to be referenced now are below - along with my analysis of why they don't preclude mental health information from being provided on pages:

• From WP:NOT: Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations... or issuing public service announcements - nobody's asking for "public service announcements" style of information. What people are asking for seems to be similar to what The Canadian Encyclopedia publishes on their articles directly about suicide. Also from WP:NOT: Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. - this is referencing actual lists that are not encyclopedically relevant, not what's being requested here.
• From WP:ADVOCACY: Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia which aims to create a breadth of high-quality, neutral, verifiable articles and to become a serious, respected reference work. - as shown above, many encyclopedias do publish resources as part of their encyclopedic mission. Also from Wikipedia:Advocacy § Identifying advocacy: Some editors come to Wikipedia with the goal of raising the visibility or credibility of a specific viewpoint. It may be a hypothesis which they feel has been unduly dismissed or rejected by the scientific community; it may be alternate or revisionist interpretation of a historical event or personage; it may be additions to an article about an organization to portray it in a positive or negative light. The essential problem is that these goals conflict with Wikipedia's mission. Wikipedia is not a venue to right great wrongs, to promote ideas or beliefs which have been ignored or marginalized in the Real World, or to be an adjunct web presence for an organization. Wikipedia cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it; the failure to understand this fundamental precept is at the root of most problems with advocacy on Wikipedia. - resource information is not advocacy by any definition. The only applicable part of this could be "an adjunct web presence for an organization", but even that doesn't really apply, since nobody is advocating for any specific organization to be represented, but general information. The potential for the resources to be used to advocate for specific organizations can be handled through guidelines on how the specific information displayed is to be selected, where it is to be displayed on the page, and carefully selecting which pages they do display on.
• No Righting Great Wrongs is also commonly referenced - but it doesn't apply here. You might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case. While we can record the righting of great wrongs, we can't actually "ride the crest of the wave" ourselves. - there is no "record" attempting to be "set... straight", and in fact, we wouldn't be "rid[ing] the crest of the wave ourselves". Many encyclopedias that are online include these resources already, and in fact many non-encyclopedia websites do too. We would be following, not leading, in that sense.
• The 5 pillars - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. - again, as showed above, encyclopedias do contain this sort of information sometimes.
• Wikipedia:No disclaimers - A disclaimer in a Wikipedia article is a statement or warning that the article is not appropriate, suitable, or guaranteed for some specified purpose. - again, not what's being requested here. While some may desire for these notices to include a statement about what is included in the article, that is not what the basis of this is about. Again, see The Canadian Encyclopedia - a simple statement To reach the Canada Suicide Prevention Service, contact 1-833-456-4566. would suffice, even without the first sentence they include about the content of the article.
• Wikipedia:External links - External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article. Nobody is proposing they be placed in the body of the article, but instead in a header or infobox style. And to note, infoboxes already allow external links in them, so there's a huge precedent for external links not being relegated to the bottom of the page when placing them at the top is more useful to our readers. Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. Pretty clear that this is "further research..." and is "other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in the article".
• Arguments are also made that the information may become outdated, become malicious, not work when a reader clicks them... but these sorts of arguments don't affect our ability to put other external links in articles, even in the infobox. As always, Wikipedia is never finished, and these notices could be crafted in a way that allows (trusted) editors to update them when necessary. And that's actually the benefit of an online, everyone-can-edit encyclopedia over a print one - a print encyclopedia would not be able to be updated on the spot if/when resources change. Hence why I do not think comparing us to print encyclopedias here is reasonable - because they do have this as a valid reason to not put information into their print versions.
• Last thing I'll address in these bullet points is the question of liability that Donald Albury brings up above. To make a slight correction, we do not have disclaimers on medical articles - but the reason we don't is the general disclaimer at the bottom of every page on the wiki. We also have the medical specific disclaimer, but that isn't actually linked directly from the bottom bar, and per our guidelines on disclaimers, shouldn't be linked in specific articles either. If those disclaimers suffice to protect us from liability from pages that explicitly detail current medical practice, and even more so, pages like crisis hotline, rape, suicide, and more to have external links to, phone numbers for, information about, and images that reference them now... then those same disclaimers will protect us if the same information is presented in a different manner/place on the page. If this sort of proposal is further developed, it would be prudent to confirm with legal the wording/etc to ensure they're aware - but they've really never prior regulated the wording of content in that sort of way.

To be quite honest, this is a stylistic decision, and only a stylistic decision. Not an issue of whether it's encyclopedic or not, because other online encyclopedias do include this information at least sometimes (and again, we follow, not lead). Not an issue of whether a link would violate our policy on external links, because such links would meet the three criteria listed there: Is the site content accessible to the reader? Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is the link functioning and likely to remain functional? (emphasis mine). It's not trying to right a great wrong, because there is no "great wrong" being righted, this would be purely informational in nature. It's not a disclaimer, because nobody's suggesting this be simply be a warning about what follows in the article (which would be a disclaimer), but to more prominently place relevant and helpful information towards the top of the article in some way. Not advocacy, because nobody is suggesting we advocate for anything - providing this information at the top of the article(s) in question would serve an informational purpose for our readers. While it's certainly within us editors' discretion as a community here to decide "we don't want to provide this information", there's really no policy reason that we can't. And even if there was, If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Wikipedia exists to be an encyclopedia - "A comprehensive reference work (often spanning several printed volumes) with articles" - and to provide useful articles for readers... in a way that the reader will understand and find interesting. Whether we want to admit it or not, some readers will be directed to Wikipedia when they are searching for information about suicide, mental health, rape, etc. and currently, the primary place they will see it is the very end of articles in External Links - which does not serve our readers who will in a time of distress see a long article and likely never make it to the EL section. For all of the above reasons, I support further discussion, and workshopping of an infobox or top-banner style notice to be placed on pages that would provide this information. I would be happy to workshop some examples of formatting if it would be beneficial to this discussion or an eventual RfC, but I would need others to input on the best way to provide geographically relevant information - is it that the banner links to a separate page (whether in article space, project space, or elsewhere) that contains resources by country/location? Or is it the use of geo-notices as proposed here? Or is there another way that wouldn't require the user to click through to a separate page? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

"Whether we want to admit it or not, some readers will be directed to Wikipedia when they are searching for information about suicide, mental health, rape, etc. and currently, the primary place they will see it is the very end of articles in External Links" That's funny. I would have thought that the primary place they would find such information is the articles themeselves. If I were looking for help, therapy, treatment, etc for such things, I wouldn't go to the article about them. I would do a search for "suicide helpline" or "rape crisis center", etc. Sorry, but you still fail to show that WP:NOT doesn't apply. User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

It's completely reasonable that someone that suspects they may have a mental health problem may do research about it to see if it really does line up with what they're experiencing. Providing this information in no way detracts from the usefulness of Wikipedia- the only possible effect is positive. Ju1c3machine (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the original poster is asking to add. That's what should already be in the article. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I am the original poster- I'm saying that if someone is researching a condition, it might be because they're thinking they have it, so including resources would be helpful. Ju1c3machine (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Which are you looking to add 1) details about the disorder to "see if it really does line up with what they're experiencing" or 2) places to go for an actual diagnosis, because these are different things. The first is encyclopedically relevant, the second isn't. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm asking to add resources such as official government sponsored hotlines, because if someone is on the page for a mental illness they think they might have, where to find treatment is relevant and helpful information. Ju1c3machine (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the most likely effect will be that more people will rely on Wikipedia to give them information about helplines, etc., rather than on more relevant and more complete websites. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned before, news sites commonly include hotlines at the end of articles about suicide- I don't think anyone has drawn the conclusion that they should head to the NYT for mental health information. Ju1c3machine (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

We're not a news site. What they do is completely irrelevant. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

What IS relevant is that other online encyclopedias do, as mentioned above. Ju1c3machine (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

section break 2, mental health topic

I don't see an issue with making a cat hall page to list "recognized" resources for mental health type issues, with "recognized" being either official govt resources (like 988 for the Suicide hotline) or from expert, well known medical organizations in that area. Since these can vary by country, a separate page makes sense, and which could be highlighted by a color keyed navbox. Masem (t) 14:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I definitely agree that we might want to limit resources to those that are official/government funded instead of random organizations. Ju1c3machine (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

How many official/government contact points are we talking about? There are 193 members of the UN plus a few other generally recognized sovereignties, some breakaway states, a number of dependent territories, and many sub-territories (states, provinces, etc.), each of which may have their own resource contact points. So, do we concentrate on providing contact information only for political units with large populations? Sending people to on-line contacts which do not have a local presence will often not be enough. In some places, directing people with problems to official contacts may not be the best way to help them. Maintaining all of that information (protecting it from link-rot, vandals and well-meaning but ill-informed editors) is going to require work from volunteers (edit-protection or pending changes may help, but is not perfect). I am afraid that, based on the typical level of maintenance in Wikipeida projects, a page such as proposed here will end up giving unusable or even harmful information to people seeking help. Donald Albury 16:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

For article content, when the full list isn't feasible, we usually focus on large English-speaking countries plus anything with significance (the oldest, the biggest, etc.).

For external links, we would normally link to a web directory instead of maintaining anything ourselves (e.g., https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/suicide/suicide-prevention-hotlines-resources-worldwide for suicide hotlines). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

If this is on a separate list page, there is no reason not to include them all. One or multiple tables (organized by continent) can make for easy navigation. Subpages could be made for North America (US states and Canadian provinces) and any other country where there is such significant lower level govt involvement. — Masem (t) 16:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking that keeping it to English-speaking countries would be enough, considering this is English Wikipedia. Ju1c3machine (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

That would cover more than 50 different countries. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there a limit to how many countries we can provide information on? Ju1c3machine (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea of a separate page or a template similar to a navbox, but I think that should only be a partial solution. Again, many articles already include resources (of varying quality and number) at the bottom of the page in the external links section. So adding more resources even further down on the page doesn’t really improve anything here. Maybe I misunderstood you? But I’d prefer it to be an info box style template (whether above, below, or incorporated into the info box if the article had one) with a sentence inviting people to click a link if all they want to see is the resources without having to scroll the article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

On the original idea, of having a section (or paragraph) in articles about various organizations/crisis lines, I think it's a good idea. If the article is organized along the suggested WP:MEDSECTIONS plan, then it would usually go under ==Society and culture==. For example, an article about suicide could mention 1-800-273-8255 (song).

In terms of ==External links==, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#External links has recommended for years that local/city organizations be excluded (because even if we think it's great that one city has a support group meeting on Thursday mornings for that kind of cancer, that's really not useful information for the rest of the world), and that either a small number of national/international groups be considered for inclusion, or a link to a good Web directory (which does not have to be Curlie, and often shouldn't be). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

• This is becoming a WP:Perennial proposals issue, but I have several reservations about this practice, however well-intentioned. The evidence of the effectiveness of suicide hotlines is inconclusive. Any endorsement of this health intervention is non-compliant with WP:MEDRS. The inclusion of such resources could a) be taken as condescending by people who have these conditions or b) could encourage faulty self-diagnosis, which would be very problematic. Encouraging the reader to think of their subjectivity as a potential victim of an illness can have deleterious psychological effects. Further, as Donald Albury notes, the work of actually verifying that any given hotline, even if government-sponsored, is actually sincere in its mission and serves to help those who call it represents a massive amount of volunteer effort on a global scale, with a very real risk of sending people to crisis lines that will cause them harm (due to insufficient patient privacy protections, due to inadequately trained personnel or ideologically rather than scientifically-driven therapy practices, etc.). The framing of this entire question feels like a response to a school-assembly PSA: why depression and anorexia? Why not schizophrenia, or BPD? What about illnesses that are not primarily mental, but which almost certainly see a significant amount of traffic from people who suspect that they've contracted them, such as gonorrhea or COVID? Crisis hotline disclaimers are a feel-good solution in search of a problem, and we will certainly find a can of worms' worth of problems if we implement it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  OP here- you might note that the original post uses anorexia as an example- if there are help lines for BPD and schizophrenia then I think those should be added as well. I"m not weighing in on physical illnesses because that's very clearly a matter for doctors, and it's a bad-faith argument to compare the two. "Here's where people that have this can get help'" is in no way condescending or encouraging self-diagnosis, and I'm pretty confused on how you drew that conclusion from what I said at all. Ju1c3machine (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that it needs more discussion on what article(s) or topics this would display on. But the mere fact that discussion and hashing out are needed shouldn’t preclude a proposal from moving forward. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  I thought so too, so I added WP:PEREN#Add prominent links to crisis hotlines on relevant articles a few days ago. We'll still have to let this one play out though. Anomie⚔ 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think that was premature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think it was warranted after the previous discussion in April, following the two in September 2022, following the one in 2019. I just didn't get around to it then. But once this one goes the same way with respect to banners or notices in the lead, we can re-add it. 🤷 Anomie⚔ 23:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

  But will it? So far, I see nobody objecting to adding some information about the existence and work of support organizations in the body of the article. I think that means there is support for including that information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  I recommend reading section 3 of this discussion, there are definitely notable arguments against from @Chaotic Enby and @AddWittyNameHere. Ju1c3machine (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  I didn't reply under section break 3, but I am very much not opposed to adding information about support organizations in a verifiable and WP:DUE encyclopedic way. What I take issue with is a list of miscellaneous external links, but that's something else. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Whoops, sorry, just woke up and operating pre-coffee over here. I do think that having a separate page of resources sorted by country is the best solution at this point, but I do feel like it's going to spiral into me creating wiki articles for each organization and their work/history eventually... Ju1c3machine (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  That would be amazing, that's how the encyclopedia grows! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 04:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps you should re-read what I actually wrote, below and there and at Wikipedia talk:Perennial proposals, instead of setting up a strawman? Anomie⚔ 10:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The idea needs some workshopping and refinement, but I support in principle. The page/template would need to be 30/500 protected at minimum, but full or templateeditor protection would be preferable because it would be a definite target for trolls. It might also be worth opening a dialogue with the Foundation to see if they or Trust & Safety might want to give some input. They might even have some resources or a grant for maintaining it. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Pages aren't protected preemptively, and trolls are virtually never extended-confirmed so I don't see what full protection would bring in this case, except making it much harder to add new entries assuming the proposal goes through. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles are usually not pre-emptively protected, though there are some exceptions like Today's Featured Article when it's on the Main Page. Other high-risk pages like the Main Page itself are protected, and we have an entire guideline allowing high risk templates to be pre-emptively protected on a case-by-case basis. Regarding the WP:NOT argument, I think there's a valid WP:IAR exemption that can be justified on humanitarian grounds. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article is only preemptively protected because previous TFA were repeatedly targeted, and is still only semi-protected. The only preemptively full or template-protected pages, high-risk templates are protected because they are transcluded on tens of thousands of pages and can cause immediate widespread damage to the encyclopedia, while not needing regular updates. A list of information on many organizations will definitely need regular updates, while not being transcluded to the same scale as citation or infobox templates, so full protection is very much not needed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but this still falls under WP:NOT. You have still not demonstrated why Listings such as the white or yellow pages should not be replicated. does not apply here, especially with the proposal of making separate pages for this information. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Information on organizations that treat or provide assistance with a disease is objectively relevant to the Wiki pages aimed to provide information about that disease. Even if that were not the case, I also agree with The Wordsmith on there being a valid exemption to the rule for humanitarian reasons. Ju1c3machine (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTIAR. As pointed by multiple people above, it is not even clear that this would be an improvement to begin with, let alone an improvement to our purpose of being an encyclopedia, and making an exception for "humanitarian reasons" would open the door to a lot more non-encyclopedic stuff that could be justified on the same grounds (humanitarian fundraisers, advocacy groups, etc.) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the post from bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez above- I agree that is is an improvement to our purpose of being an encyclopedia, given that other encyclopedias include this information. Ju1c3machine (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't follow what other online encyclopedias do. Both of the ones mentioned also include quizzes but we aren't adding those. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I addressed this in my comments above. Encyclopedias exist to serve their readers. And sometimes this means we bend the “not a white pages directory”, whether in lists with links to our own articles or lists with external links. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

While, yes, encyclopedias exist to serve their readers, that doesn't mean that anything that is potentially useful has to go in an encyclopedia. Lists with links to our own articles aren't anything like a white page directory, and I don't think anyone here would object that a list of notable helplines wouldn't be encyclopedic. But a standalone repository of phone numbers/external links, while useful for some readers, wouldn't be more encyclopedic than a software changelog. WP:USEFUL is not an argument for IAR. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:59, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Anything can be an argument for IAR - if it's an improvement. You say it's not encyclopedic, then why do other online encyclopedias generally include them on at least some pages - see above? Further, nobody is suggesting that the list be put in mainspace. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose including any kind of out-of-band helpline links, both for the practical reasons already identified (vetting that they are legit; keeping them up to date; normalising the expectation that Wikipedia is a place to get medical advice) and because there is very limited evidence these things are helpful, and the possibility that they are actively harmful, causing ideation that may not otherwise have crystallised. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I can see your point behind causing ideation for something like suicide, but don't see how that relates to other topics, like eating disorders or bipolar disorder. Seeing a phone number for either of those isn't going to make someone 'start' being bulimic or bipolar. Ju1c3machine (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying that a phone number is going to cause a mental illness, just that mental illness, generally speaking, is a complex phenomenon and its contributing factors are not well understood. I think it is at least plausible that reading an article which is written in a dispassionate, detached, neutral tone, will have a different psychological impact to reading a warning notice that personalises the interaction by suggesting that you might want to call this number if you are affected. This isn't a peer-reviewed comment. It may be an unfounded concern. But this proposal is a public health intervention, so I'd want to have a steer from a medical authority of some sort that it isn't going to cause more harm than good. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Note - I sandboxed the easiest method of doing this at the top of the page - adding to the infobox either above the image or at the bottom of the infobox - I don't really like either of these ideas since I think that it makes the statement less prominient than it should be, but you can see them here. Of note, I didn't expect WP:Mental health resources to be a blue link. It's a soft redirect to meta:Mental health resources. So it appears that Trust and Safety has already gotten rid of any liability concerns through the normal disclaimers/etc. And obviously it can be maintained, as they are doing it. I think the mere fact this page exists and has been approved by Trust and Safety means that any argument based on "we can't keep it updated" can be put to rest permanently. It would be ideal to have a version of that page adopted to the English Wikipedia however. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I like the sandboxed version (and think at the bottom of the box looks better than at the top from an aesthetic point of view), but that then raises the issue of having to create another page to link to for each illnesses' resources- instead of this just being acceptable to add to a page, it would require creating an entirely new page and linking it, which seems like a bit bigger of a project than I originally intended for. That being said, I really do like the way that Wikimedia's page is formatted, and wonder if it would be possible to create one page for helplines and link to individual sections that are relevant for each topic. Ju1c3machine (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

In this case, it could be good to have it outside of mainspace (possibly in projectspace instead), and a hatnote at the top of the page would be a more elegant solution than an infobox, as the latter is intended to summarize information. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

A hatnote would be an option, but then you run into issues of "what if a page already has a hatnote"? I know some pages have long hatnotes, but this should really be separate from a hatnote for disambiguation, redirect, etc. reasons, as it's completely separate. I was going to try to sandbox a new "infobox" similar to the topic navigation boxes that show on suicide and other topics, but after everything moved to modules (which is great, don't get me wrong) I really can't be arsed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez, your sandbox's infobox says:

"Help If you or someone you know is considering suicide, you can find resources to help here".

Why not a simple, ordinary link to "List of suicide crisis lines", without the WP:YOU-style writing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy for anyone to edit it to be better, but I don't think a simple link to a list without a sentence isn't going to be what is ideal here. If that's all people are okay with it's better than nothing I guess. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

References

• Oppose I support anyone applying for money at meta:Grants:Start to develop this idea. Here and every other time this has been proposed, I feel that the early ideas are more harmful than good. Problems include
  • English Wikipedia is a global service, but there are no crisis support services that are global. There are not even enough regional support services to be satisfactory.
  • Services are not neutral. Many of them take positions on ethics and values. For example, some crisis hotlines may advise people that their lives will be better if they quit being LGBT+. We should not recommend an external service without having a process to report and evaluate them.
  • Wikipedia is not prepared to recommend products and services. If we start doing this, then certain organizations get government, foundation, and other funding and while others do not. Organizations will pay staff to persuade Wikipedians, sponsor Wikipedians to travel, send their staff people to conferences, talk about the partnership in the media, and advise the wiki community with expertise that is difficult to evaluate. Managing endorsements requires staff, and the first step is not to make endorsements to see what happens.

Again, I support the development of the idea, and someone should apply for a grant to develop all the reasons for and against. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Very good point, especially regarding the non-neutral position that Wikipedia would have to take when recommending services. These are not comparable to external links, which are just showing links where relevant information can be found, without recommending the services provided in these links.
It's not even a question of "managing endorsements would be complicated". Managing endorsements would make us fundamentally non-neutral. We shouldn't be recommending products and services to begin with. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:02, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

A free-to-use government-sponsored emergency hotline is neither a service nor a product. All of the arguments above can easily be handled by just providing official resources. Additionally, the anti-LGBT hotline falls under WP:FRINGE and isn#t relevenat to the current discussion. Ju1c3machine (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

A free-to-use government-sponsored emergency hotline is neither a service nor a product. It is, by definition, a service. And anti-LGBT hotlines are relevant to the discussion because, sadly, some countries' official resources are anti-LGBT. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a proposition about hotlines on mental illness articles- what mental illness would need an anti-LGBT hotline? Ju1c3machine (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Some countries consider LGBT people to suffer from mental illnesses. You very likely don't want to call a government hotline in Qatar to effectively turn yourself in for being gay. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe that falls under WP:FRINGE. Additionally, there isn't a specific psychology page for homosexuality as a mental illness. Ju1c3machine (talk) 12:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE or not, if you're recommending government hotlines, that's the kind of stuff you risk having in more than a few countries. And given that the readers we link the hotline to will likely trust it enough to share personal details (even if just for the needed context), some of them will actually risk ending up in that situation, with the hotline possibly blaming their LGBT identity as the cause for their condition, even if they didn't reach the hotline through a specific "homosexuality as a mental illness" page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That's definitely something to keep in mind, but I think the discussion should surround what criteria we are used to provide resources that are safe for users instead of "here's why we should scrap the whole idea". Ju1c3machine (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

section break 3, mental health topic

I agree that if there's interest in the idea, the Foundation should be consulted. Normally I'm very opposed to integrating them further into enwiki processes, but this area seems like it would be a logical place for that. Trust & Safety may have even considered doing this already, and might be willing to share and research or insight they have. Maybe they'd even be willing to take care of maintaining the list. It seems like this discussion is to figure out whether there's some interest in the overall idea that's worth developing further, and I think there is. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Any advice on how to move forward from here? This is my first time suggesting something like this on wiki, I'm not super up to speed on what the correct process is. Ju1c3machine (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You wait for there to be a consensus here. IMO it's likely this will turn out much the same as previous times this sort of thing has been brought up: between the questionable impact of helplines and the need to be global, something at the top of the article or in the lead beyond a hatnote like we have on Suicide (pointing to Suicide prevention) is unlikely to be accepted. Similarly, a listing within an article is unlikely to overcome WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a directory. OTOH, a well-written section in the articles (or standalone article, if independently notable) about types of prevention or support would probably be accepted. Anomie⚔ 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to operate on the principle, "first, do no harm". I have not seen any WP:MEDRS-compliant source that says whether such helplines are helpful or harmful or neither. I myself suffer from a mental illess (two in fact) and, though I don't claim to speak for anyone but myself, can see that it is by no means self-evident that helplines, or the promotion of them, actually help. Yes, they provide a nice warm glow to the people that operate them or volunteer for them, but I would probably be adversely affected by the suggestion that I should call one. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I too have mental health issues (+autism, which in my case brings with it a good few issues that do at times interact with my mental health issues), and while I am also not claiming or attempting to speak for anyone but myself, I can confirm your statement beyond a "would be": suggestions of calling a helpline/crisis line have in the past adversely affected me (by setting off an anxiety attack or flashback, mainly), and my experience with actually using such services a handful of times has varied from "slightly helpful" to "harmful". AddWittyNameHere 06:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate (again) that I'm not advocating for the "random volunteer tells you to not commit suicide" type hotlines, I'm advocating for the "hello I think I need to get help for my eating disorder, can you please help me make an appointment with a provider in my area" type hotline. Ju1c3machine (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ju1c3machine: I know you are. (Though not everyone in this discussion is, on both sides). That said, those sorts of hotlines would still adversely affect me, simply because they break down the barrier between "abstract concept" and "this (could) apply to me", which is what such hotlines/their mentions within the relevant contexts are based on: someone realizing "this applies to me" and which leads to either realizing they need help (the type of hotline you advocate for) or spiraling and needing more acute intervention (which the other type of hotline is supposed to provide, at least).

I can absolutely see how that would be helpful in a lot of cases, but at least for me personally, that "barrier-breaking" is more likely to do harm than good. By turning an abstract, distant concept (which, sure, I know happens to apply to me too) into something about me, first and foremost (that happens to apply to other people too) may bring on the "this is talking about me, remember that time when you [...] oh and that perfectly describes that other time when [...]" spiral of flashbacks depending on my state of mind at the time.

Of course, my experiences are my own, and like I said, I can see how it would be helpful in plenty of cases. But that it can do harm alongside good is something I feel should be weighed into decisions. AddWittyNameHere 07:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I can see your point, but also think that it has potential to do a lot of good- for example, I have ARFID, and a suggestion on the page to get help might have saved me a lot of struggle instead of thinking that my eating disorder was just "how I am" or "picky eating", and something worth getting help for. Not to get too personal, but my delay in getting help has lead to being diagnosed with heart disease, likely as a consequence of malnutrition- something that could have been avoided if I had known where to go to get help for it sooner. Ju1c3machine (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, I can also see your point. It has potential to do both good and harm, alongside what's likely the greater bulk of cases—folks to which the issue described does not apply, particularly—in which it has negligible to no impact at all. I do wish there was a better way to figure out how much harm it would prevent vs cause, but if wishes were fishes...

So, barring that, my main reason for mentioning the point (both here and elsewhere in the section) is to ensure that its potential for causing harm alongside preventing it is taken into consideration, in part in whether this is a good idea, but especially in, if it is decided it is a good idea, what way to implement this and what group of articles to apply it to.

(As for too personal, I think sometimes getting personal in discussions about matters like this and accessibility concerns can be pretty useful by illustrating how a change could be/have been helpful (or harmful) in a non-hypothetical manner.) AddWittyNameHere 04:44, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Does it change anything that there's a Trust and Safety approved list on meta already that we link to from WP:Mental health resources already? Pinging both User:Bluerasberry and User:The Wordsmith to ensure they both see that they've already started a list, and merely linking to that list (if nothing else) would almost certainly not be something they'd want to give "more" approval to. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I've also added a note to the talk page of the meta page for anyone with experience in how this page is used, or from the WMF, to comment here if they so desire. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: WMF Trust and Safety is great for what they do. They should not change anything.

However, when resources are scarce and the Wikimedia user community wants something versus the Wikimedia Foundation wanting something different, then T&S is going to side with the WMF. In general, T&S prioritizes protection where the WMF as a corporation could be legally liable. T&S do not prioritize lower level safety issues, and if for example, we had democratic governance, then most Wikipedians would vote to eliminate the common familiar problems and not the rare emergency problems. I am not saying that democracy is good or bad in this case, just that the majority of requests/votes would be for things that T&S does not do.

It is not appropriate for the Wikimedia community to freely edit that page on meta. Some pages on meta are sort of owned by WMF staff, and that is one of them. I support that page being there, but it being there does not indicate universal consensus to endorse driving traffic to it or its contents. When a lot of WMF staff edit a page then editors get scared away from raising criticism or concerns or problems.

Again, I support anyone applying for a grant to document all the social and ethical issues that come from making crisis referrals to organizations outside of our platform, and to just take this seriously. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think we’d necessarily need to edit that page or maintain a local copy - even just linking to that page directly in the hatnote (or whatever is decided) would suffice. I can’t really tell what your opinion is - at first, it was reading as that it’s “not possible” to make such a page, but Trust and Safety already has done so and apparently they’re not concerned with the liability from it at all, nor linking/directing to those specific organizations. I’m not suggesting that page is evidence of a consensus - that’s what this discussion is for - but that page is evidence that Trust and Safety has already thought about the issue of “which organizations” and our liability and decided that they are either non-issues or can be properly managed by them vetting the links. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

section break 4, mental health topic

Is there a way to get WMF's opinion on the idea? Ju1c3machine (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The WMF can do whatever they want on MetaWiki, but having a corporation-vetted list of services masquerading as an encyclopedia article is not what Wikipedia is for. There isn't even evidence that it would be helpful, let alone that it would be a justified WP:IAR improvement to the encyclopedia. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:05, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting this would “masquerade as an encyclopedia article”, so statements like that are less than unhelpful. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

How is including a relevant link to an existing Wikimedia page "masquerading as an encyclopedia article"? Ju1c3machine (talk) 05:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I wonder whether the people supporting this proposal would advise people with cancer or heart disease (or arthritis - I have never considered suicide as a way out of my mental problems, but I would do just about anything to get rid of the pain when my arthritis flares up) to phone a well-meaning amateur rather than seek professional help? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I can see this point being made for suicide crisis lines, but the types of resources I had in mind are the kind where you can call and someone helps walk you through finding professional help in your area. Ju1c3machine (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ju1c3machine: In List of countries by English-speaking population, India, Pakistan, and Nigeria are top 5. It would be disappointing if we did not recommend good services to them but designed our support to refer people in other countries. It is a challenge to find regional services in those places. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Taking Nigera as an example, it took approximately 30 seconds to find a list of government-sponsored hotlines. Ju1c3machine (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow! It's almost like there are ways to find this information that are already available and are much better at it. -- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow! It's almost like that's not the point of the proposal, and that consolidated information should be available from the page itself for easier access to those needing help. You can't argue both "we can't do this because the resources are hard to find" and "we don't need to do this because the resources are already super easy to find somewhere else", that's absurd. Ju1c3machine (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Show me where I argued that these things were hard to find? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The person that replied before you argued that it was hard to find resources, which I disproved, and then you said we don’t need to because it’s easy to find resources. Since when does “you can find this information somewhere else” mean that it doesn’t belong on Wiki? Ju1c3machine (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

People with cancer aren’t at risk of dying imminently by suicide if they don’t find another path forward. Your suggestion comes closer to a general “medical disclaimer” that’s explicitly not appropriate on Wikipedia. Offering people an option other than “keep looking at articles about depression/suicide until you do it or get tired of it” isn’t the same thing as “contact your doctor to discuss medical concerns”. Attempting to make that analogy minimizes the urgency of suicide prevention. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

People with cancer aren’t at risk of dying imminently by suicide if they don’t find another path forward. - they well might. Cancer comes with elevated suicide rates, particularly when the prognosis is poor and/or quality of life is significantly, long-term impaired—concerns about the former and ways of hopefully tackling the latter are both better discussed with a doctor than an amateur volunteer without access to your medical information.

Offering people an option other than “keep looking at articles about depression/suicide until you do it or get tired of it” isn’t the same thing as “contact your doctor to discuss medical concerns”. Going to be a little more explicit here about my mental health/experiences with mental health crises than I would otherwise be: in my case, that "offered option" would increase rather than decrease the risk I am at.

From experience, if not actively struggling, looking at [clinical representations of/distant mentions of] suicide and depression with or without mention of hotlines is unlikely to set off my suicidal ideation and related matters.

If I am struggling, however, without such hotlines it makes it a distant and clinical concept, which has helped me distance myself from such thoughts a time or two. On the other hand, with hotlines (and especially when those are directed at the reader) provided, it breaks the barrier that makes it an abstract concept and turns it into "something I might feel tempted to do/could do". Which tends to make my ideation a lot less abstract and my intrusive thoughts more intrusive. (That my experiences with crisis lines are a mixed-leaning-negative bag including two cases that set off my anxiety if reminded of them at the wrong time does very much not help there)

Of course, I am just one person, and my personal experiences don't apply to everyone. I'm not saying "it is harmful to me, therefore it must be harmful in general". But there does seem to be a tendency (in general discourse, not you specifically, nor even this discussion specifically) to gloss over the fact that the presence of such reader-directed hotlines might cause some people harm, too. It might well be that on the whole, that harm of their presence is outweighed by the harm of their absence—but that's impossible to determine without first taking into account that there is harm on both sides of the coin. AddWittyNameHere 07:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to ask that that discussion stays on topic to my original proposal, which was to add resources for where someone can find treatment options for mental health problems, not suicide hotlines themselves. My suggestion was prompted by friends of mine with mental health problems wishing there were easier ways to get help- in some countries, there are easier ways to get help, and I believe adding them might help make those options more widely known, especially when (as mentioned before) someone is reading Wikipedia to learn more about a condition that they didn't know was the reason behind their maladaptive behavior. Ju1c3machine (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing Google (or any other search engine) would be much better for than Wikipedia. -- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Suicide hotlines are easy: We can link to List of suicide crisis lines, which already exists (for more than a decade), already is sourced, etc., and we're done.

I think the more interesting area is non-suicide social support. So to answer the question from @Phil Bridger, I would recommend a peer-led support group to people with cancer. People with cancer who join peer support groups tend to live longer and have better quality of life than people who don't. Support groups are mentioned, e.g., in Breast cancer#Society and culture. Note that it doesn't say "If you live in Ruritania, contact the Ruritanian Cancer Support Group"; instead, it has encyclopedic information about the earliest support group for breast cancer. Someone could expand that article content if they wanted to; the result would probably say something like some are organized through hospitals and there are a bunch on social media. It might even touch on the practice of having separate support groups for women who are highly likely to survive vs those at risk of treatment failure and death.

I don't know if there are similar groups for heart disease. Part of what seems to make a peer-led support group work is having everyone more or less in the same situation, so it might not be "heart disease", but instead for people with a specific type of heart disease.

But overall, I would recommend the "well-meaning amateur" in some instances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

add resources for where someone can find treatment options for mental health problems Using your Anorexia nervosa example, what specific resources or links would you add? Some1 (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Resources that I had in mind when I posted the proposal (not meeting the criteria of 'maybe we should stick to government-sponsored organizations' because I don't have time at the moment to do research and I happen to know of these off the top of my head) would be NEDA and ANAD, whose hotlines connects individuals with treatment options (ANAD was the first ED hotline to exist which I think is also a neat fact to stick in an article somewhere), EatRight, which has a directory of nutritionists and dieticians (who are an essential part of recovery, as people with EDs need a very specific diet to avoid refeeding syndrome), NAMI, which provides general mental health group support, and Eating Disorders Anonymous, which might be a helpful tool for someone who doesn't need traditional inpatient treatment. Ju1c3machine (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Slightly more awake addition to this: Eating Disorders Anonymous is also a good resource for those who can’t access inpatient treatment, but it’s an option many in ED communities are completely unaware exists, so I believe linking that one specifically would have a rapid positive impact on those affected, especially for users in the US (where it can be prohibitively expensive and/or not covered by insurance) and the UK (where I’m less familiar with the topic, but believe there are also some issues there with waiting times and quality of treatment facilities). Ju1c3machine (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• I have to confess that I have never really understood the overall meme of mental health hotlines. You see them in a bunch of cases (notoriously, near the ends of subway platforms). My main experience with them is that they are obnoxiously and insistently slathered over my screen if I try to look something up which happens to be tangentially related to a contentious mental health topic. The impulse is very easy to understand, as it's a syllogism you see all over the place: "suicide is a tragedy, something should be done about tragedies, and this is something". Here is something to consider: many of our readers get to Wikipedia by way of a search engine. If you search for "suicide" you're already forced to scroll past a full screen's worth of paternalistic lecturing from Google LLC, so are we actually providing any benefit by making our readers sit through a second one after they click the Wikipedia link? jp×g🗯️ 00:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

If you don't believe me, here is what you see when you Google "suicide" (I am in California so your results may vary):

Help is available
Speak with someone today
88 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline
Languages: English, Spanish
Hours: Available 24 hours
Call 988	Text 988
Chat	Official website
	Learn more • Feedback
Connect with people you trust
From International Association for Suicide Prevention · Learn more
If you’re struggling, it’s okay to share your feelings. To start, you could copy one of these pre-written messages and send it to a trusted contact.
Reach out	Contact a loved one	Express your feelings
When you get a chance can you contact me? I feel really alone and suicidal, and could use some support.	I don’t want to die, but I don't know how to live. Talking with you may help me feel safe. Are you free to talk?	This is really hard for me to say but I’m having painful thoughts and it might help to talk. Are you free?
For informational purposes only. Consult your local medical authority for advice.

After this, there are three videos hoisted to the top of the results: "Suicide: Facts & Misconceptions You Should Know", "How Do I Ask For Help If I’m Thinking About Suicide?" and "Teen Suicide Prevention". All of this takes up about a full screen on a normal computer. Then you scroll down past another screen or so of offically-approved links to suicide hotlines (one from the California State Portal, one from the CDC, one from the NIH, and then one from the WHO). Only then, after Google has diligently eliminated all possible sources of legal liability (e.g. repeated CYA disclaimers about "consult your local medical authority") do they permit the Wikipedia link to appear. I copied the full text content of the search results page into a reading-time estimator, and it gave me 1:54. This means that someone who clicks on the link to Suicide from a Google search does so after having spent nearly the entire runtime of Led Zeppelin - IMMIGRANT SONG.mp3 having helpline numbers shoved in their face. Are we really, genuinely, helping this person, or are we just making ourselves feel better, at the cost of diminishing their ability to read the article? jp×g🗯️ 01:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting something intrusive that would diminish someone's ability to read the article. The suggestions I've seen so far are a hatnote style one line at the top which would likely be in italics, or an addition to the infobox, or a small box above/below the infobox with a page of resources linked to from it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

If you read the conversation, we are talking about a small link to mental health resources for issues that are not suicide. I would appreciate it if this conversation would stop getting derailed by what I was unaware is a controversial topic. I recognize that there are mixed opinions on suicide resources and warnings, which are numerous- this is not the case for other mental health issues, such as eating disorders, or this conversation wouldn’t be taking place. Ju1c3machine (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's getting derailed. Suicide is the option that has the most pre-existing consideration within Wikimedia Foundation projects (see WP:Mental health resources) and is also the one with the most correlation in other encyclopedias/etc. Yes, it's divisive, but those opposing them for their "efficacy" are opposing all mental health resource links for their efficacy from what I can see. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of evidence that people are thinking about anything except suicide. In fact, I added a link to Diagnosis of autism#External links a couple of weeks ago. It's about mental health. It's a resource. It's a link. There's been no opposition, and I expect no opposition (assuming nobody decides to be WP:POINTY after I mention it here). I'm hoping that some readers, particularly high school students writing the predictable paper for health class, will click the link and learn something (e.g., that the diagnostic process for autism involves fairly ordinary personality-type quizzes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a good data point, but I think the original proposal was for them to be more prominent (i.e. infobox, a box above/below the infobox on the side, a hatnote, etc) rather than relegated to the bottom of the page in EL. I agree that putting them as EL isn't generally considered controversial. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Ju1c3machine's original proposal here was to have a directory of information in a section within the article. You jumped in early on and started advocating for a prominent "call to action" at the top of the article. Then WhatamIdoing jumped in with some more status-quo options (e.g. external links that could comply with WP:EL and in-article coverage in line with WP:DUE rather than against WP:NOTDIR) but also refuses to accept that people can make a distinction between those and yours.

To my eyes, the rest of the discussion seems to have been supportive of WP:DUE and WP:EL, and opposed to top of the article calls to action and to article-space directories other than the already-existing List of suicide crisis lines. Whether the line on more subtle hatnotes has moved from the very subtle one approved in Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#Proposal to add suicidal disclaimer at Suicide is unclear. Anomie⚔ 11:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe that people can make a distinction between different forms. However, I don't believe that putting an oversimplified line in WP:PEREN that says the community has a consensus not to "Add prominent links to crisis hotlines on relevant articles" will result in people making that distinction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

You believe people won't read more than the heading of anything, so if it's not possible to state as a soundbite then it's not possible to state at all. Anomie⚔ 10:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe that.

I do believe that most people do not read things closely.

I do believe that most editors will not read past the headline when they believe that the headline has told them the whole story, and especially if they want the contents of an oversimplified headline to be the whole story.

See also all the people who see an WP:UPPERCASE shortcut and assume that they know what the policy says – even if the linked page isn't a policy and says the opposite of the shortcut (e.g., WP:VOTE and WP:NOTAVOTE, which point to the same essay; WP:DEADLINE and WP:NOTDEADLINE; WP:NOTWINNING and WP:WINNING; and so forth). This is not a unique problem. The whole internet has problems with people only reading part of the story, and then going out to assert that they really know what's going on because they read – well, not the whole article, but the headline, one caption, and half of the first paragraph. We have a rule against relying on news headlines if you haven't read the whole article, and against relying on abstracts if you haven't read the whole journal article; we would not need those rules if busy people could be relied upon to read the whole thing every time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

So which is it? We can't add it to WP:PEREN if we can't reduce it to a soundbite because people won't read more than that, or we can add it to WP:PEREN because we have rules against not reading the whole thing and hundreds or thousands of existing rules that already require reading the whole thing to get right? Anomie⚔ 13:08, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

You can't add your summary to PEREN because you don't have consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Because exactly one person (you) objects, for no reason you can support? 🙄 I don't think that's how consensus is supposed to work. But if you're going to be like that, I suppose we can waste time with an RFC about it after this discussion too closes with consensus against a prominent top-of-article call to action. Anomie⚔ 11:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

We could equally say that "exactly one person (you) supports". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

You could say that, but you'd be wrong. At least one other person here has supported adding it to WP:PEREN. Anomie⚔ 02:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I went with suicide, because it's the one thing where the argument is strongest for including some kind of hatnote or warning label. For e.g. anorexia or bulimia, the case is quite a bit weaker, since there is not a possibility that the person is imminently about to die -- they have just as much time as anyone else, they just have a mental disorder. They are just as intelligent as anyone else, too, and I don't see why we need to give them additional hatnotes on top of an article that's already about the disorder (we don't have hatnotes at the top of bandsaw that tell you to wear safety glasses, or gas metal arc welding that tell you to make sure your ground clamp is connected, et cetera). People with anorexia can read, yes? If you Google "anorexia", you already get reams of stuff about how to get help and where to get help and here's a helpline and et cetera. The intended demographic of this intervention seems extremely small: people who have a mental illness and desperately need help for it, who are wise enough to be reading a Wikipedia article, but not wise enough to be able to type "[name of disorder] help" into a search engine? jp×g🗯️ 07:24, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the important thing to remember is that, while yes, many people treat Google as a first source of information, our articles are linked to throughout the web. For all we know, someone's reading an article on some blog somewhere that has a link to our article on suicide, and it may not even be a clear link (perhaps it was an easter egg link on that site). Many people also do use our interwiki links and/or search bar to get to articles directly, rather than dealing with the ads/promoted links on Google/other search engines. Sure, I don't think anyone going to the Canadian Encyclopedia is so internet unsavvy that they can't go to Google and type in "X help". But that's not why their hatnotes exist. It's because people arrive at articles they don't intend to, or that they may have intended to but only after going down a rabbit hole of seeing things that have triggered them to be thinking about committing suicide. Let's use an example - someone hears a nice Avicii song that they enjoyed, and they come to look up the album/song on Wikipedia. They then click the article about Avicii, because they want to read more about him - without even thinking about suicide. In reading our article, they read about his suicide, and that gets them to thinking about it. There isn't currently a wikilink to suicide in his article that I can see (though there maybe should be?) - but they now, thinking about the topic of suicide and seeing that a musical artist that they enjoyed committed suicide, happen to go to our article on suicide, in a time of distress. Not because they came to Wikipedia thinking about suicide - they came here for information on a song/musician. But they ended up on our article about suicide nonetheless. That is the "intended demographic", and for those with mental illness, going down those rabbit holes that lead to researching suicide or self-harm is all too common. It costs nothing for us to add a prominent but not intrusive list of resources for them to use if they want to stop going down that rabbit hole but can't do so on their own. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 08:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This is really well worded and a great descriptor of why I made this proposal, thank you! Ju1c3machine (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

"they have just as much time as anyone else, they just have a mental disorder"

Eating disorders have the highest mortality of any mental illness. This is being proposed because an issue I struggle with isn't very well known and I didn't realize help existed for it, let alone that it was a problem that I needed serious help with instead of just being a 'personality quirk'. I'm not sure why you think reading an article on one of the most popularly used websites on the internet makes you 'wise', but no, for a lot of these resources googling doesn't really provide resources or help- it's just WebMD summaries of how to spot early signs of those issues in kids, because god forbid those kids not figure out there's a name for what's wrong with them until later and want to fix it. Ju1c3machine (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I note that there have been over a hundred responses to this, but only one (this one from Rosguill) has come with a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, and that was inconclusive and about suicide prevention lines, which we are told is not the subject of this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Changing all values of the Hebrew language, from Yeshu(ישו), Yeshua(ישוע)

Hello Wikimedia Foundation, my name is Jack from Israel and I would like to talk to you about a very important topic that has never been mentioned almost at all. In the United States they say the name Jesus, the "J" becomes a "Y" and thus the name Yesus or "Jesus" was created. Anti-Christian elements criticize his imposition on his name and omitted the last letter in the name of Yeshua and turned it into the name "Yeshu" as a derogatory word, when the word Yeshu becomes an initials and its meaning becomes the phrase "yimakh shemo v'zikhro", This was mentioned in all the Hebrew scriptures and also in the wikipedia. In my opinion it is not even necessary to explain why this topic is so important and most importantly to change the value of his name from "Yeshu (ישו)" to "Yeshua (ישוע)". But here are some explanations from my own why it is so important; First, changing a person's name can damage history, also changing Napoleon's name can damage the future reporters and also lead to the end of the being Napoleon, we would not want to erase a person like this from our history and forget him on the other hand, today it can be seen that 80% of the people of the State of Israel do not know His real name and they even call him in the derogatory word "yimakh shemo v'zikhro" Wikipedia should tell us (the people), Correct information, up-to-date, and true information! And a person who doesn't understand what a certain entry means, like for example "Yeshua" is welcome to do Wikipedia, that's what you were created for, right? When a person does not know what Yeshua word means, he can do Wikipedia and understand. Secondly, the moral and social level involved, changing a person's name and turning it into a derogatory word looks like this ("yimakh shemo v'zikhro") an injury to Christianity as a whole, disrespects the person (Jesus) and humanity, which colludes with deranged Messianic rabbis who devote their entire lives to inventing lies about Christianity . Does Wikipedia, are you members of the Wikimedia Foundation, agree with these values? In this way, it is like taking the name of something and changing or removing or adding a letter to its name, this can lead to complete oblivion of the person. As can lead to the future bringing of precious Hebrew reporters, and even the rewriting of the New Testament and changing its future name from Yeshua to Yeshu. We don't see it now, but in the course of the years and the progress of evolution, where books will become digital material and thus bring Wikipedia as the most authoritative source on the Internet; What will be created by this is an injury to the name of Jesus and also an injury to the values ​​of history. In addition, here is an article that was written on Wikipedia in 2017 but did not receive much attention: "As a free encyclopedia, we are supposed to meet certain standards. These standards should on the one hand be professional and on the other hand take into account the reading public. I will point out facts: regardless of the name, the entry is currently one of the poorest in Wikipedia on the subject when it includes a list of sources that is so sparse on one of the entities (Note that I did not use the word people so as not to offend, of course) the important ones in humanity history. In addition, in my humble opinion, the Hebrew Wikipedia is the only one that uses a historical derogatory word. I understand that for a large part of you it is not perceived as a derogatory word, but it is certainly possible that a large part of the population does. In fact, it is so unfortunate because it is also about "gypsies", one of the most common derogatory words in connection with peoples in the world that people use without noticing. On the one hand, Wikipedia should champion the professional name, which is Yeshua, and on the other hand, it should champion the non-blatant name, which surprisingly ( cynicism) is also Yeshu. In fact, every time a discussion about the name of the entry comes up, we must reject the request, which comes up again and again, and it changes the name of the entry. The fact that we as Wikipedians receive these complaints over and over again only exacerbates the situation and presents us in a negative light My hypothesis is that it will not offend a person if the name of the entry is Yeshua, but indeed it will be if it is the name Yeshu. We, as Wikipedians, allow the name of the entry to continue, so it is possible that we are actually hurting other people's feelings, even if unintentionally..." In conclusion, changing the name of Yeshua(ישוע) to Yeshu(ישו) is not only an injury to Christianity as a whole, to human dignity, it is also an injury to history itself and can even cause major problems from this issue. Therefore I ask the Christians who are reading this, will you allow the people to blaspheme the name of Jesus? Will Wikipedia give priority to such a disgrace? That's why I ask in every language of request, to change the word "Yeshu" to the word "Yeshua" in the Hebrew values I would love it if you read and contact me, many thanks Jack 87.71.160.172 (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

If you're hoping for a constructive response, you might want to consider WP:TEXTWALL. And in the future, consider using paragraphs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I ask not to judge my writing.

Thank! Appspame (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

From what I have been able to gather, you have a problem with the way the Hebrew (or transliterated Hebrew) for Jesus of Nazareth is written in at least some (all?) articles? From what I can see (MOS:JESUS) we don't have a site-wide consensus on how the name should be presented in Hebrew. As such, how it is referred to in any particular article will depend on the sources being used for the information - if the sources use one transliteration then that's fine to use. That said, I appreciate that this IP believes one spelling of it (in Hebrew or transliterated Hebrew) to be offensive to some at least. I can't tell if the IP is complaining about something solely present on Hebrew Wikipedia (if so we can't really do much), but it may be a good idea to add something to MOS:JESUS as to how we refer to the person - do we always use the English name "Jesus (of Nazareth)", do we sometimes use the Hebrew name, and if the second, what spelling/transliteration do we use? I'll be leaving a note on the IP's talkpage to ask them to clarify their issue. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 07:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there is some related information in Yeshu. It appears that this set of letters was used in one (i.e., a single) medieval-era Masekhet as an acronym rather than/as a pun on the name, and a 17th-century German man, Johann Andreas Eisenmenger pushed the idea that this spelling is always insulting, along with quite a lot of errors, bigotry, and nonsense.

Some modern writers use the difference between Yeshua and Yeshu to distinguish between Jesus of Nazareth and all of the (many) other people with the same given name ("Joshua" being the most common English spelling). If that is the widely accepted convention in Hebrew, then I would expect that not following it would be confusing to readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

According to your opinion, the two main reasons why you do not want to change the name from Yeshu to Yeshua are:

The first was that the use of the name Joshua can cause confusion with other names in history, many rabbis who use this claim as a cover for changing his name Yeshua to Jesus (yimakh shemo v'zikhro).

This claim is completely absurd and can be refuted in several ways.

The first, the most well-known example (which occurs mainly among the rabbis), is the change of the name Yeshu to Yeshua, so that they do not get confused between the name *Joshua* and Yeshua, which is completely absurd in the English language and also in the Hebrew language, it does not come out or sound the same, the addition of the letter " The "in the King of God" can change the spelling completely, (Yeshua - *Yehósua*), another example, changing a name, dropping a letter changes the name completely, for example Jack-Jacek, one can understand the essential difference between the two names, thus expanding the claim. Of course there are other examples in this regard, but I will not list them...

Second claim, "Israeli society is already used to the word "Yeshu", and this is also a rather absurd claim, as if a society decides to change the name of something (and something else very important throughout history) collectively, it does not really change its name, like this friend that everyone calls him by a nickname, but finally his original name will appear on his ID card. And so is Wikipedia, which is supposed to serve as an identity card of values; And the kind of value and also Yeshua.

In addition, if any company decides to boycott any country, and even create a political conflict against it-

A. This does not mean that it is impossible to change the situation and bring it to a better two-state situation.

B. The mere fact that one country decides to ignore another country does not make the other country non-existent.

And likewise his name, if a company of people decides to reverse the name of Yeshua and become the word "Yeshu" it did not reduce his name to Yeshu!

Also, Wikipedia must adhere to the correct values ​​and provide correct and reliable information.

In addition, you wrote "there is not much to be done if this"

I am personally ready to sit down and change all the values ​​in which the word Yeshu appears, and I also recommend to the members of the Wikimedia Foundation in Israel to make an effort to correct the values.

I ask not to ignore the first message I posted.

Thank Jack. Appspame (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is not in Israel, and it has no members. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

First, I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång that the WP:TEXTWALL makes it hard to read.

Second, This was mentioned in all the Hebrew scriptures is anachronistic; the Hebrew scripture were closed long before his time. As for the Talmud, the date that I have seen for the early part, the Mishna, is 200 CE, surely a bit late to have influenced the spelling in the Christian scriptures.

Third, if there are surviving Aramaic copies of the Christian scriptures then the name written there should be used. Otherwise, the Greek transliteration now accepted in Christianity should be used.

Do you have a RS for the original name being ישוע? Or for the Christian fathers adopting יִמַּח שְׁמוֹ וְזִכְרוֹ (abbreviated יש"ו) as his name? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

My intention is that it could lead to the rewriting of the New Testament, in the name of technological progress... What could be written by a Jew who does not know the true name of Yeshua and will therefore call his false name Yeshu Appspame (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In Judaism there is such a thing called the Ark of the Covenant where every rabbi can add more and more and more books the Hebrew Scriptures do not close they continue. The very fact that you say such a thing means that you know nothing and a half about Judaism or about the State of Israel itself. You can ask any rabbi and he will answer it for you. (cf. Sifrei Kodesh entry) Appspame (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Here is another example of a book written in the last 500 years Shulchan Aruch is a very important book for Judaism! So much so that it even entered part of it into the Pesach legend! Appspame (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

In general, the very thought that they took the name of a historical figure and simply changed his name definitively does not excite you, the use of the wrong name can lead to historical disruptions and surely the website Wikipedia, which should lead to one of the most authoritative sites for learning on the Internet, gives the wrong name of some person throughout history  ? If the name Napoleon was written incorrectly you would correct it correctly and if any other name was written incorrectly you would correct it.! But when it comes to this name, suddenly there is a problem, right?! Appspame (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I specifically turned to you because I know that you are people with logical considerations, people who know some logic in their lives. You can admit that you simply do not have the strength to change all the names on Wikipedia to their true value. I actually did not address the Israeli community because the Israeli community does not understand the value of the importance of such a thing, but you who live in the United States should know the value of the importance of such a thing! This is not only a disruption of history, it is also an injury to the person's name. Appspame (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, there is no "true value" to which we should change everything on Wikipedia. Names have been transliterated and written different ways in various languages throughout the centuries, and Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth. If you want this change to be made, claiming that it is the "true" spelling isn't enough, you need to provide us with sources actually using it as the Hebrew spelling. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the New Testament the most correct spelling for Jesus' name? The rest of the inscriptions are actually under the inscriptions of rabbis or rabbis that were written after the New Testament. The oldest inscription in which the name Jesus was mentioned was the New Testament. Appspame (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is absolutely absurd that you need to bring evidence for the name of Jesus, that you can simply go to the place where he mentioned his name for the first time in the New Testament! This is the oldest source that mentions his name, and also it should be brought to the most authoritative place regarding his name, and also an attribution of a name change written about 500 after his death, should not be attributed any meaning to it. If so, can you bring me a Hebrew source older than the New Testament that attributes his name, and also says that his name is Yeshu...? Appspame (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

There are many editions of the New Testament, some of which use one spelling. Even if you took the oldest edition, that one would have several words spelt according to the conventions of the time instead of modern Hebrew. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

In Hebrew we have two types of new house, the first is modern Hebrew and in biblical Hebrew the word Yeshu does not appear in both of them Appspame (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"new house"?? Is that a standard metaphor in modern Hebrew? —Tamfang (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You say that there are other versions of the New Testament in an older way in Hebrew, I want you to find me an older New Testament in which the word Yeshu is written, if you do not find it, this makes the most recent existing New Testament the oldest place where his name was mentioned. Any claim that is not a counterquote is considered to be evasion Appspame (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I can also invent that there is an older inscription past the life of Alexander the Great and it says his name Mordechai Reuveni. That doesn't make it right! Appspame (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Matthew 1:16... (and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.)

מתי 1:16... ("יַעֲקֺב הוֹלִיד אֶת יוֹסֵף בַּעַל מִרְיָם, אֲשֶׁר מִמֶּנָּה נוֹלַד יֵשׁוּעַ הַנִּקְרָא מָשִׁיחַ." ) Appspame (User talk:Appspame|talk]]) 22:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

> If the name Napoleon was written incorrectly you would correct it

True, but we'd have to talk about what "correct" is. We write about Napoleon, even though his name was Napoléon in French and Napoleone at his birth. Which one is "correct"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

In the United States they say the name Jesus, the "J" becomes a "Y" and thus the name Yesus or "Jesus" was created. What?? —Tamfang (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of languages share the Latin root Iēsūs. Learned borrowing, the proper way of inheriting words, changes the spelling to be more in line with a language's phonetical spelling. Way back when, the J was the proper way to spell Y. I think that's what it means. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

So why suggest that one or the other is an American innovation? —Tamfang (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll give the benefit of the doubt and assume they tried to explain why it starts with a Y for the uninitiated. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe that this has to do with the Protestant Reformation happening in German(y). A German J is pronounced like an English Y. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like, around the time of the Reformation, "J" hadn't even become a separate letter yet, it was still considered an "I" written with a swash. J#History, J#English, and Jesus (name)#Medieval English and Jesus have more. 🙂 Anomie⚔ 11:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Latin too. —Tamfang (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, not in Hebrew. Cullen328 (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

But I'm not looking for the value in Greek, I'm looking for it in Hebrew, in Hebrew they write Yeshua, according to the oldest inscription the New Home in Hebrew! Appspame (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If I didn't want to search in Greek I would contact you with a Greek caption, but I'm searching in Hebrew Appspame (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Does Hebrew distinguish Y from J ? —Tamfang (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

in Hebrew they write Yeshua – no, apparently they write יֵשׁוּעַ —Tamfang (talk) 02:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That's splitting hairs. They's used the romanization nearly everywhere throughout the entire thread. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Why do you insist so much on not changing the name of the entry, and admitting mistakes?, I suggest you also research the issue and go to the Igod.com website, which explains some important topics in the Bible and the New Testament! Appspame (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Appspame, nobody can tell from your overly lengthy commentary which specific articles here on the English Wikipedia you propose to change and which reliable sources you propose to cite. We cannot help you with any other language version of Wikipedia. You need to be far more concise and clear. Cullen328 (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try it, the oldest Hebrew source in which the name Jesus appears is found in the New Testament. The New Testament is not found in the entire state of Israel where the word Yeshu appears, Wikipedia relies on older writings written about 500 years after Jesus and 1500 years written by Rabbis. I am personally ready to change the values in which this disgrace appears and change his real name from Yeshu to Yeshua all I need you to do is to approve me thank you! Appspame (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I brought all the proofs, I brought all the explanations!... Appspame (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Appspame, I guess that I need to repeat my questions since you failed to answer the first time. Which specific articles here on the English Wikipedia do you propose to change and which specific reliable sources do you propose to cite? Vague, sweeping claims are worthless here. Please produce the specifics, or move on to something else. Cullen328 (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

No, I'd love to talk about it a little more I want to really understand what is the point where you don't want to change his name to his real name? the New Testament because it is a faithful place, and if you don't want to take the New Testament it is a faithful place, the place after which it was written was the Koran, also in the Koran his name is mentioned and guess what his name is Yeshua, my first point is that it is forbidden to change a historical detail, to come and say that there is not enough evidence to prove that it is a historical detail whose name Was Yeshua it's like coming and saying that there is not enough historical evidence of Napoleon's name was Napoleon. The books of the New Testament are not only "books of stories" but also historical books that tell us about the First Temple period here in Jerusalem. My second point is that if a society is used to something it doesn't mean that you can't just change it, for example if South Africa is used to massacres and genocide, doesn't that mean you can't change it and just leave it as it is? So you can also change! I'm trying to understand why you are so opposed to this question mark I brought proofs I brought points for thought but you decide to ignore them why?! It's about my English, I'm very sorry, it's my English, after all, I live in Israel, be patient with me, thank you. And once again, it's important for me to point out that I don't come from a place of anger, I come from a place of disappointment, disappointment that I even have to come and say such a thing to come and wake up people's eyes and explain to them that my name is my name, and my name is not what changed it, that's why it gives me a feeling of disappointment Towards myself, towards humanity and towards Wikipedia which cooperates with unreal and incorrect values! More than that, you take values that were written exclusively in Hebrew by messianic rabbis and not by people who actually knew Christianity and who knew who Jesus is, so I think that your faithful source are not instructive, but because they were written by people who hate the New Testament and hate Jesus and that's how they are Let his name be known. In the same scripture where the name Yeshu was written, there were also lies written about him and lies also about the New Testament by those people who did not even dare to open the New Testament or read from it or understand it. And you call them a faithful source? Appspame (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you think WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS applies to what you want to be done on the English Wikipedia, whatever that is? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Btw, this is not the Wikimedia Foundation (you wrote "Hello Wikimedia Foundation" in your OP), this is more like the en-WP Wikipedia community, or at least the parts of it that noticed this thread and decided to write a reply.

My understanding so far is that you want every Wikipedia-article, in any language, that includes a Hebrew spelling of Jesus, to use the Hebrew spelling you prefer. That is not something en-WP can decide, and while you can try to contact the Wikimedia Foundation, it's not an issue I think they'll consider their business, they generally leave Wikipedia content to the various Wikipedia communities. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aren't you the Wikimedia Foundation?! So what good are you to me?! Appspame (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Like someone once wrote, that is the question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What?.... Appspame (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written by thousands of volunteers. The Wikimedia Foundation maintains its infrastructure, not its content. —Tamfang (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

We are not the Wikimedia Foundation. We are the volunteers who actually do the work. The Wikimedia Foundation just handles funding and legal issues; it doesn't actually control the content of Wikipedia at all. You're talking to the right people if you want to change something, but Wikipedia makes changes by WP:CONSENSUS, not by a few people who are in charge. This means we will argue about something for a long time before doing anything about it. Cremastra (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

No, this is the English wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation is something entirely different. And we (TINW) are here for the benefit of the readers, not for the benefit of editors with an ax to grind, and are subject to various policies, one of which is the requirement for reliable sources as defined in WP:RS. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

For the interested, related discussions on he-WP:[1][2]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: There appear to be 14 en-wiki articles where "ישו" appears. In all but possibly one a change from "ישו" would definitely not be reasonable as they either use it in contexts where that specific form is necessary and/or where the Yeshu/Yeshua::Jesus/Joshua distinction is discussed (Jews and Christmas, Public holidays in Israel, Toledot Yeshu, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, Jesus Trail, The Book of Nestor the Priest, Aleinu, Yimakh shemo, Yeshua, Yeshu, Isa (name), Arabic Name, Biblical names in their native languages). For Religious perspectives on Jesus the cited work would need to be consulted, but the way it's written suggests that it should be left as is. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: An Israeli citizen could hypothetically lobby the Israeli government to change the name of its public holiday "עליית ישו השמיימה". If -- and only if -- that effort were successful, then Public holidays in Israel could and should be modified. Getting the Israel Museum in Jerusalem to modify the Ossuary shown in The Lost Tomb of Jesus so that its caption could reflect the change is another task that a local could likewise hypothetically attempt. (TL;DR: Don't) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense! In Israel, according to the Hebrew Language Academy, Yeshu's real name is Yeshua and you can ask the Hebrew Language Academy, they are responsible for the Hebrew language, not Wikipedia! So that Wikipedia does not only dishonor the name of the person, it also dishonors the historical value, also dishonors the Hebrew language and the Hebrew Language Academy. Appspame (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Assuming you mean the Academy of the Hebrew_Language (הָאָקָדֶמְיָה לַלָּשׁוֹן הָעִבְרִית), then your assertion does not appear to be reflected in the practice of that organisation. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

You take the names of the Catholic Christian holidays that were translated by non-Catholics and these names were never approved by the Hebrew Language Academy and you give them as an example?! What kind of example is this? You show some examples and you say, here is the name that appears here and here and only on this holiday does this name appear, perhaps only because only this holiday has been approved and translated by the academy and qualified Christian authorities! Appspame (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I actually chose to talk to you because I thought you were more reasonable people who know facts and live in the sand and should understand the essence of the matter! Appspame (talk) 14:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

And once again you never answered me why you are so, so opposed to changing the name to his real name? Are there internal factors that tell you not to do such a thing, is it only because I am Israeli and you are anti-Semitic? Is it because you are against Christianity and in favor of desecrating the name of Jesus? Tell me what the real reason is that you are so opposed!? Appspame , (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Stop with the absurd personal attacks, Appspame. Your proposal is failing to gain support because you do not understand English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, have not brought forward any reliable sources, and show no sign of taking on board the feedback you are receiving. You are an anonymous person and your claimed personal expertise is of no value here. Cullen328 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cullen328, it appears that you've accidently edited Appspame's comment to improperly add an expletive? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Liu, that was an inadvertent burp from my phone. I apologize and have removed the error. Cullen328 (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Automate suggesting wiki links?

One of the ways articles are discoverable is through wiki-links. Sometimes I come across articles that reference specific people or events, and there exists Wikipedia articles with exact matches to the inline text. This could also be a gamified task for new editors to look at proposed wiki links to be matched with inline text. It should reuse the existing visual editor interface as much as possible. Given the possibility of false/sloppy matches, these types of edits could be marked for multiple reviews, while still enable new editors to make constructive edits and have fun at it.

The main challenges I foresee are: implementing such a suggester and possibly encouraging excessive linking or worse, incorrect wiki links. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 14:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

What you describe is almost exactly Add a link, a feature developed by the Growth team. There is a discussion about turning it on at English Wikipedia as a test, feel free to join it. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 14:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Rewriting WP:BITE

I rewrote the guideline Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers to be more concise and readable in this rewrite. The current version contains many duplicated guidance, irrelevant information, and painfully common-sense recommendations (I don't think I need to provide any examples). It contains one outdated guidance (draftication is now more common than userification), and poor accessibility decisions like long bullet points as well as linking non-specific words like "here". Concise writing leads more people to actually read the guideline. How do you feel about this rewrite? Should I add/remove/change anything? Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy diff. Folly Mox (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I performed some minor copyediting on the main guideline page, but I am proposing a major rewrite as in the subpage Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers/rewrite. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The rewrite is the diff posted above; your minor copyediting is this one. I did compare the current rewrite to the last revision of WP:BITE prior to your edits there, to show the totality of your changes, and then forgot to mention it after I figured out I had to reverse the parameter values in {{Diff4}} to get it to produce the effect I wanted. Apologies for the confusion. (Also I like the rewrite. Have you seen shameless plug?) Folly Mox (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries! I didn't realize that diff viewing between two pages were possible. I do like HouseBlaster's YFA rewrite over the current version. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Much better and much more concise, while still keeping the spirit! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

While I like most of this, I feel like some of the removed points should be kept. For example, the "what to do" section feels like it would make people pointed to the guideline less aggravated, and "Common newcomer errors" offers examples of situations to apply the guideline. A lot of rationale was removed: for example, the point that newcomers contribute most substantial content was pretty poignant and the part about "be bold" feels like it should be included in the "it's okay" section. I'll see if I can change some of this.

Also, I personally have an intense dislike of punctuation right after an external link; the icon stands out a lot and looks unpleasant. Should the Stackoverflow link be converted to a footnote? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll be incorporating your suggestions into the rewrite. 👍 Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you think of this diff? Ca ^{talk to me!} 07:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried to improve it a little more. I think it looks good now. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Much thanks for ironing out awkward prose! I am not a native speaker of English so copyediting takes effort for me.

I relegated the result of 2006 informal study into an efn since it is outdated by nearly two decade. I am not sure if the finding still applies today. I'll try to find up-to-date sources.

I removed the section What to do if you feel you have "bitten" since it felt like the standard life advice when you have hurt somebody/made a mistake, and isn't specific to bite cases.

I like the bit you added about WP:AGF/Hanlon's razor. AGF should be mentioned as a strategy to not bite. However, I feel as if the paragraph could be reduced to a simple bullet point/sentence, since much of it is just restating the first and second paragraph. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd go the efn route as well.

For the razor, one of the other points I felt was missing was the part about teaching. The paragraph seemed like the best way to incorporate that. It also includes stuff about not assuming malice. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't really find anything, but I did find this graph which shows a decline in anonymous editing. Ca ^{talk to me!} 17:05, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ca, for the graph on retention, what about File:Editor Retention Update.png, from that 2011 study? Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

We're more trying to see if the "anons and newbies contribute most substantial content" can be sourced with recent, "published" data. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll look on my side. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Trizek. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

t felt like the standard life advice when you have hurt somebody/made a mistake A lot of life advice applies to Wikipedia. Common sense isn't as prevalent as it once was, and being a section near the bottom (we could even move it to the very bottom) it really shouldn't hurt to include it. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I understand your point; but if someone doesn't know a interpersonal skill as basic as this, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia in my opinion.

Maybe the section could be condensed to these three bullet points:

1. Apologize

2. Reflect on alternatives and learn from it

3. Move on Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

A lot of us here are on the autism spectrum (I am) and interpersonal skills aren't necessarily our forté. Also, people can react very differently towards conflict, irrespective of neurodivergence. A lot of other websites thrive on unkind interactions like sarcasm and cutting remarks. We can assume neither an editor's interpersonal skills nor their learnt behaviours from other online communities. Attempting to educate is worthwhile. Folly Mox (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I should have realized that my comment can be inconsiderate, I am sorry for the insensitive remark. I agree with your reasoning behind keeping the section, though I do think the current version of the section has room for concision-ing. Ca ^{talk to me!} 16:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've opened a RfC: Wikipedia_talk:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers#RfC:_Is_this_rewrite_ready_to_replace_the_current_page? Ca ^{talk to me!} 11:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding categorisation for Image supported templates

When editing an article with Template:Image requested or Template:Photo requested, I noticed that there was no clear way to find the associated categories with the article.

For example, Category:Wikipedia requested images of cars is added automatically to all articles with "cars" as parameter in Image requested, and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Paris is auto-added to all articles with "Paris" as the parameter. But there's no way to go from Talk:Gameloft and see the template there and find the category for Paris.

I think this linking would be very helpful. Any editor interested in finishing one Requested Image from Paris will likely be able to help with other articles in Paris. But there should be a clear link given from talk pages. Starting discussion here because both templates affect 250K+ articles. I'll move to another venue (which?) if it looks like a good idea overall. Soni (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Isn't there a list of categories at the bottom of the talk page? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@Soni, the very last cat at the bottom of Talk:Gameloft is Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Paris. Is that not what you want? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You are both right, I somehow missed that in all 3 talk pages I was looking at. Thank you.

I still think it might be helpful to put a link in the template itself, but it's more trivial. Soni (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that is feasible, and I wonder whether Xaosflux could do it. He's made some other edits to that template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Could MOS:TMRULES be amended to avoid conflict with WP:COMMONNAME, esp for contemporary artists and their works?

To tl;dr it – Many contemporary artists [esp. musicians, and esp Korean pop groups] consistently use exceptional stylization (non exhaustive example: ALL CAPS) for the name of their groups and/or works. It has become commonplace for sources to observe these exceptional stylizations. Conventional interpretation of MOS:TMRULES has created an untold number of articles of where Wikipedia often sticks out as the only online resource that doesn't observe these exceptional stylizations. I believe I can make a compelling case, one by one, to amend these article titles to observe the exceptional stylization. Does this have to carry on as a one-by-one where the compelling case must be made each time, or could a policy change streamline / reduce the workload?

Longform: I think Wikipedia struggles, and will continue to struggle, with the name of artists who prefer exceptional stylization ('exceptional' in the Wikipedia sense of the term). For a specific example, a lot of Korean music groups have come to prefer stylizations which break grammatical conventions. Typically, there are artists who will style their name in all caps even though it doesn't stand for anything, such as ARTMS. There, I created a move request with what I believe is a compelling argument to move from Artms to ARTMS, but I would not consider this a one-off.

As I discuss on the talk page of IVE (group), a myriad of other Korean groups come to mind, limited to, but hardly inclusive of Le Sserafim, Twice, Artms, Blackpink (re: LE SSERAFIM, TWICE, ARTMS, BLACKPINK – all consistently observed as such officially and in most sources). These artists don't incidentally use all caps stylization, they are all consistently using this stylization on social media, on streaming services, in album databases, etc. Looking back retroactively, even defunct Kpop groups like Loona were actually consistently using all caps stylizations not as a branding idiosyncrasy, but in effect, as their name. The problem as I'm suggesting it, is that Wikipedia is currently the odd duck out for a number of articles – the argument as I've made for ARTMS can consistently be made for a number of these groups. When I search these groups up Wikipedia is often showing up on the first page of search results, and is typically the only result that does not honor the allcaps stylization. My impression is that MOS:TMRULES is in place to avoid Wikipedia being beholden, or being seen as beholden, to any branding concerns or marketing interests of any entity, but in this topic area Wikipedia just ends up looking bizarre. Still, I think there are some decent questions and points of possible disagreement with how to best interpret the policies that currently exist – i.e. posts by Wuju Daisuki in the IVE group talk page. It is a bit ambiguous how to reconcile MOS:TMRULES, MOS:BIOEXCEPT, MOS:IDENTITY in some of these cases.

Another matter to consider: on top of all this, many of these groups will also have works with exceptional stylization. Again, ALL CAPS stylizations are typically the case, but albums like DALL (officially <Dall>, regardless of the fact the album artwork stylizes the title as the full title), (+_+) (actually [+ +], this is an acceptable title given technical restrictions but gives you an example of how varied these titles can be), Ive Switch (actually consistently stylized as IVE SWITCH), the song Unforgiven (Le Sserafim song) (actually always stylized as UNFORGIVEN, and again, always stylized as LE SSERAFIM) – it isn't just that Wikipedia will be exception in how it chooses to name groups in this category area, but also how it names their works, output, etc. A number of the music labels also consistently prefer exceptional stylization and are consistent with this stylization even in minutiae like fine print of legal documents.

Though it is probably the easiest area by which myriad examples can be found, it shouldn't really be something that is only going to be relevant to Korean groups. Much of my music library is comprised of works published from the early 2010s and later, and I suppose you could attribute the internet(?) to an interest in breaking the conventions of how artists have usually titled works. The patten (musician) article correctly observes that the non-capitalization is the consistently observed stylization of the artist, and the body of the article documents correctly that most of their albums are stylized in all caps. However, the article for ESTOILE NAIANT is Estoile Naiant, though the overwhelming majority of sources observe the all caps stylization [Tiny Mix Tapes], [RA], [FACT], [Apple Music], etc. This is not a one-off. As many labels go digital and many artists primarily work and publish online, it seems like they have more interest in creating titling which happen to potentially conflict with MOS:TMRULES, but thanks to the free flow of information online, they can enforce this stylization, and satisfy WP:COMMONNAME.

(Aside: Those factors which have contributed to a rapid increase of exceptional stylizations are effectively entrenched at this point, and so I except this to become increasingly common as time goes on. Then as an alternate consideration: as it becomes easier for brands to enforce or otherwise affect consistent use of preferred stylization across sources reporting on them, is TMRULES altogether an archaic policy which attempts to enforce a traditional encyclopedic mode which is not relevant to the 21st century?) 122141510 (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice of this discussion added to Wikipedia talk:MOS and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks. Schazjmd (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's in Wikipedia's best interest to try and follow by default what is essentially marketing stylization, because that's ultimately not a COMMONNAME issue but a styling one, and our Manual of Style takes precedence. Arguing it on a case-by-case basis is absolutely preferable to trying to turn Wikipedia's articles into BLɅϽKPIИK by default. We're an encyclopedia, not an extension of a marketing effort. (Beyond this, trying to do a carveout for this would have logical knock-on effects to a ton of Wikipedia's coverage, for example how some artists present their songs with all-lowercase titles.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It is a COMMONNAME issue at this point – Wikipedia is typically the outlier. I would characterise MOS:TMSTYLE as presuming the artist or their works will not be successful in enforcing or affecting their preferred stylization when they are discussed in reliable sources. I don't know when exactly, but sometime in the last 10-20 years that presumption has become wrong more often than it has become right, and it's easy to see how the internet has led to interest in all this.

Regarding BLACKPINK vs BLAϽKPINK, I'd consider it more of an edge case than completely undermining the point I'm bringing up. That is, I think the default question editors should have to reach a consensus is not "should Wikipedia document them as Blackpink or BLACKPINK?" but "should Wikipedia document them as BLACKPINK or BLAϽKPINK?" I'm essentially objecting to where the WP:ONUS is in this matter. 122141510 (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose – we shouldn't make it easy for anyone to get away with ALLCAPS capitalization, since that's just a cheap marketing gimmick. Gawaon (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Too common to be reasonably characterized as just cheap marketing gimmick, and since an overwhelming majority of sources accept these stylizations anyways – whether ALL CAPS, all lower case, or otherwise – Wikipedia is going to observe them because they end up becoming the common name anyways. I really think that this is a question of whether compelling argument or not could be made to move hundreds of articles, something can be done to manage the active workload, backlog, and change the parameters for future titles. I could knock off a series of move requests this week and see how it goes if it isn't going to be taken as too WP:POINTy. 122141510 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd add a "citation needed" to that. A news search for "Le Sserafim" includes quite early hits such as [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], all of which use the normal case form. Marketing material will of course, and by definition, use the marketing gimmick form – independent media and anybody else, not necessarily. Gawaon (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I think @122141510 might be a little too focused on one specific corner of media, whereas "publications precisely replicate the formatting the band does" isn't really extended to a lot of other media (for example, films do a ton of specific weirdness with their titles, and outside of very exceptional cases, we don't tend to follow it.) Also, COMMONNAME very much doesn't speak to stuff like ALLCAPS formatting, it's talking about choosing article naming more generally. I don't think the comparison of "do we call this species by its common or scientific name" really relates to the question of "do we respect marketing ALLCAPS for k-pop groups". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It's incorrect to narrow this down only to kpop groups. I've focused on them by way of example that should be understood to be non-exhaustive, and a below comment points out there's another concurrent move request regarding a US group which is fundamentally the same problem and – I assert – coming to an (imo) incorrect consensus that contradicts with the consensus currently forming for a move request I submitted. It would only be a lack of familiarity by which we might assume this will only be Korean pop music. 122141510 (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Under MOS:BIOEXCEPT and MOS:IDENTITY, living subjects of articles are entitled to exceptional stylization if groups clearly and consistently use an exceptional style, and an overwhelming majority of sources use the same exceptional style. It doesn't have to be all of them. An argument already exists for these moves – I'm asking to streamline that, and also expand the scope just a bit to observe that their works are in effectively the same boat – Wikipedia is avoiding stylization out of an excess of caution, and is out of step with sources and the common name as a result.

I'd assert that something to the the effect that if an artist consistently styles themselves and/or their works with an exceptional stylization and they've pushed that exceptional stylization to a plurality of streaming services or music stores, they're likely to be able to successfully enforce or otherwise assert their stylization across an overwhelming majority of sources and satisfy those criteria, and effectively become the COMMON NAME by which they and/or their works are referred to as.

I am assuming linking these won't run afoul of canvassing – especially since you don't appear to agree – but if you disagree with the premise, I'd actually encourage you to take a look at the one aforementioned move request I submitted and mentioned already Talk:Artms#Requested_move_25_July_2024, and another I just became aware of by way of this page Talk:DNCE#Requested_move_19_July_2024. If the former in particular is successful, it could effectively serve as a template for a series of move requests I could submit which would be limited only by time available to me, but I'd rather reach a point of 'per X' or some other kind of 'QED' by being able to point to a policy – the same way the latter move request, despite being fundamentally the same circumstance, is currently looking like it will reach a consensus to reject exceptional stylization by simply citing MOSTM without anything inherently mandating considering the COMMONNAME before they cite it; flawed consensus that prioritizes an incorrect reading of MOSTM over COMMONNAME has already occurred. 122141510 (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Except that for most bio cases, like kd lang, the request isn't to shift to all caps but sonething that remains clearly readable in running prose. Shifting a name to ALLCAPS where that is not an established initialism makes articles harder to read, and that's part of why the MOS presscribes it this way. Masem (t) 19:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Harder to read? This isn't a personal attack, but may I ask how old you are and/or roughly what generational cohort you are a member of? I can readily imagine it's harder to read for older individuals, but if it was that much harder to read for a younger audience, they wouldn't be consistently observing it on their fan sites, fan wikis, SNS, etc. and journalists would avoid it in the bodies of their articles and/or the titles of their articles. I've never known teenagers or young adults to be big sticklers for observing brand conventions if they don't have to – hence, maybe, why it's still Lego and not LEGO. Is there some policy where consideration for what some editors might find hard to read should be prioritized over the common name? AFAIK the only limitation along those lines would be technical restrictions, but I understand that as primarily being because Wikipedia couldn't render certain titles anyways, even if editors could reach a consensus to do so otherwise. 122141510 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not just a generation thing, we serve the global readership that understands English, which includes those where English may be a secord or third language. Throwing ALLCAPS names around that aren't there to simplify a larger proper name (like for NASA or EPA) is unnecessary when the same info can be present in normal case and is far easier to read by the worldwide readership.

Also the COMMONNAME point here is not yet shown. Marketing material is not the same as the reliable sources we try to judge COMMONNAME on. Masem (t) 19:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I simply don't believe that all caps are harder to read to the extent we'd have to override common name, regardless of whether the user's first language is English or not. I have only perused the abstracts or skimmed a few research papers, but maybe the first time we read something in all caps – like COMMONNAME(!) – we might find it difficult to read, but we quickly get used to it and it is no longer as distracting or difficult to read. I don't trefer to COMMONNAME, MOSTM, etc. in all caps to make contributing to Wikipedia harder for any editors who might have reading difficulties, and I doubt you do either. I'm not sure I appreciate what point you're trying to make. I read your argument almost like making an argument for localization? I'd oppose changing Lavrentiy Beria's name just because a plurality of people for whom English is their first language cannot read or pronounce his first name correctly? 122141510 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Your argument: "These artists are doing something silly for no reason and their fans have glommed onto it. Wikipedia should too."

Our answer: "No." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

There are plenty of other things I think are ridiculous which Wikipedia has entire series of articles on, and I'm sure you might feel similarly about other article(s), but insofar as what we're discussing here, I object to reducing my argument such that artistic expression is something artists might do that is silly for no reason, or that fans have 'glommed onto' their expression. Please don't put words in my mouth. My argument is Wikipedia isn't observing the common name and incorrectly reading MOS:TM. 122141510 (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

It's lettering, not artistic expression. It's a pure sylistic thing, so their choices are completely irrelevant. We have a style guide of our own to follow. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:TM already covers this, stating:

”… Wikipedia relies on sources to determine when an unusual name format has become conventional for a particular trademark; only names that are consistently styled a particular way by a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are styled that way in Wikipedia.”

In other words, the guideline already tells us that we should follow COMMONNAME, by looking at how independent reliable sources format a trademarked name in their running text.

That said… there are two key words in this instruction: the first is independent… we don’t look at promotional material, album covers, etc, as these are not independent. The second key word is consistently. We need to establish that there is indeed a non-standard presentation that is COMMON. A few sources presenting the name in a particular format is not enough. We would need to establish that most (if not all) of the independent sources do so. That is rare. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I think I agree most of what you're saying. We only disagree on how rare it is – I don't think it's rare at all. Maybe trying to raise the issue proactively is causing people to underestimate and won't really go anywhere. Is there a particular number of successful RMs I might need to submit before I can make a case to editors? Or should I just keep submitting them and instead of assuming it will be a problem, someone managing the WP:RM workflow might flag it instead? I don't know the best approach here, but I guess I'll just start submitting more of them. 122141510 (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

That’s up to you… but my advice would be to go very slowly. If you truly CAN establish that a significant majority of independent reliable sources consistently use some particular styling, that should support moving the article. But… be cautious. You don’t want to earn yourself a reputation for filing unsubstantiated (and therefore disruptive) RMs. Blueboar (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me be a little clearer about this. You absolutely do not want this to happen:

• You: Everybody says BLACKPINK, so Wikipedia should change the title of Blackpink to use all caps.
• Alice: Everybody? Not The New York Times.
• Bob: Also not The Washington Post.
• Chris: The Times doesn't use all caps either.
• David: Nor i (newspaper) nor The Guardian.
• Eve: But WP:DAILYMAIL sometimes uses the all-caps styling.

So if you are going to make a claim that we need to change the title because it is "commonplace" to use all caps, you need to first determine whether it's actually common, instead of being common inside your filter bubble, or common primarily on social media, or only within a particular category of source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm conscious of that. The amount of effort involved there is quite gargantuan but it is probably better, as Blueboard suggested, to go slowly. I've identified four relevant articles at this time;

• Artms, where there is virtually no source that does not render the group as ARTMS. I submitted the RM and expect it to achieve consensus.
• DNCE, where there is virtually no source that does not render the group as DNCE. I did not submit the RM which is attempting to move away from the stylization (against sources), and it's not obvious if it will or will not achieve consensus. I'd like it to be a good example to demonstrate the problem is hardly limited to kpop, but even if there is consensus to retain the current stylization, it may form around something else – so I'd almost have to make a WP:POINT of finding a non-Korean group to use as example.
• Ive (group) is taking my first bite at the apple of an RM which failed previously, but was not a well-argued RM imo. The RM I've submitted is an interesting edge case where I upfront identify 3 sources which do not observe the IVE stylization – I hope editors will be able to argue for or against along the lines as I've suggested (what is 'almost never' in TMRULES? are we obliged to consider IDENTITY the way I've asserted we are?) but of course aren't obliged to do so.
• Estoile Naiant has virtually all sources but a single aggregate website observing the consistent ESTOILE NAIANT stylization. The RM I've submitted (which I've linked to another output from the same artist) is beneficial as I'm [1] demonstrating the case is hardly unique to kpop – the artist of the output in question is a British electronic artist, and probably more relevantly [2] testing whether consensus can still form in the absence of any considerations regarding TMRULES/IDENTITY or any other considerations under BLP/etc.

All my rationale focuses primarily on pulling an exhaustive number of examples by which the common name might be determined. In common with all is identifying how the group and/or their work is styled on multiple streaming services – I think I've already said it, but my assertion would in effect be if an artist consistently styles themselves and/or their works with an exceptional stylization and they've pushed that exceptional stylization to a plurality of streaming services or music stores, they're likely to be able to successfully enforce or otherwise assert their stylization across an overwhelming majority of sources and satisfy those criteria, and effectively become the COMMON NAME by which they and/or their works are referred to as. I believe Wikipedia could eventually be able to come a conclusion to generally assume that that is the case, and the onus should be on editors to demonstrate that it isn't. (Failing that, I read it as Wikipedia is willing to be blissfully wrong until editors are willing to put in a non-trivial amount of work/time to demonstrate the standard case? I don't know.) Thanks for yours and @Blueboar's advice. 122141510 (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You mention streaming services, but I wonder how much of that usage is truly "independent". Do people at the service make editorial decisions or does the site simply accept values from the digital files provided by the artist and display those? In a physical analogy, are we looking at a table of records with an official band poster hanging over it or are we seeing a table of records with a sign made by the store employees? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

They aren't independent at all, and hence irrelevant when it comes to determining what reliable independent sources do. Gawaon (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

What we are looking for are sources that would mention the subject in running text. Blueboar (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

And not just copies of press releases from the band, their manager, their publicist, or their label. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no reason to assume 'reliable independent sources' would intentionally deviate from the conventional way of referring to these groups. More often than not Wikipedia is only the webpage on the front page of search results that doesn't observe the stylizations, regardless of what else populates the first page. As I mentioned, I take this interpretation as meaning Wikipedia are willing to wrong (on purpose? to prove a WP:POINT, maybe? MOSTM doesn't give editors a carte blanche to ignore the COMMONNAME) until other editors are willing to put in a non-trivial amount of work/time to demonstrate the standard case. 122141510 (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Why on earth would we repeal a rule, the entire point of which is preventing promotional over-stylization, just because someone is unhappy that it's interfering, exactly as intended, with them using promotional over-stylization? This is part of a push to force ALL-CAPS style on a bunch of (especially South Korean girl-group) music stuff to mimic logos and other trademark stylizations. But not doing that is the entire purpose of MOS:TM, and related amterial at MOS:CAPS (especially MOS:SIGCAPS and MOS:ALLCAPS), MOS:ABBR, WP:NCCAPS, etc. The proponent is claiming in these cases that the "almost never written except in a particular stylized form" standard has been met, but in every case it is for bands or albums for which no signficant body of native-English sourcing exists at all, just marketing materials, tertiary junk like discography databases, entertainment-news sites with explicit house style to mimic trademarks as closely as possible to please their entertainment-industry advertisers, and Korean, Indian, and other foreign media, with very few exceptions. It simply is not possible for there to be an English-language RS norm to write some band name as FLUFFR when almost all of the tiny number of sources either are not by native English speakers, or are themselves promotional. (In fact, there's so little non-trivial, independent, and actually reliable sourcing that WP:AFD on WP:N grounds is probably warranted for most of them.) Even some of the Korean media outside the entertainment-specific spheres are not going along with these over-capitalizations (i.e., the normal sentence-case usage is very easy to find, in especially pertinent and more independent sources). The proposals also badly fail WP:CONSISTENT policy, in being directly counter to all the other prior RM decisions about such matters.

Next, the heading's question is bogus. There is no conflict with WP:COMMONNAME, which is a policy about what overall name to use (which might be styled various different ways depending on our style guidelines) when there are two or more completely different names. COMMONNAME (part of WP:AT) is what tells us to use David Johansen and redirect from Buster Poindexter rather than the other way around. It has nothing to do with stylization of the name, never has, never will, or MOS simply could not exist (at least not as anything ever applicable to titles, but of course we rely on MoS literally every single day at RM). AT policy and the naming conventions guidelines dependent from it defer to MoS on style questions over and over; this is a system and it works fine. The only "problem" with it – that some individuals can't get the excessive and promotional stylization they desire for the topic they're a fan of (or sometimes a CoI actual representative of) – is no problem at all but is the actually intended benefit to the project in the first place. The sore confusion that MoS is somehow "in conflict" with COMMONNAME is frequent enough (and always has the same answer) that it probably needs to be listed at WP:PERENNIAL, along with several other "trot this out for re-re-re-hash at MoS again" hobbyhorses.

PS: It's also extremely bad form, verging on disruptive, to open up a slate of RM discussions (inclucing here, here, and , Talk:Estoile Naiant#Requested move 30 July 2024, that I know of so far) and then simultaneously run a VP thread asking the same question in hopes of "WP:WINNING" one way or another. That's a combination of WP:FORUMSHOPPING (specifically the "asking the other parent" version) and WP:FAITACCOMPLI, as well as contrary to WP:MULTI and WP:TALKFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as your comments on bad form, I clearly stated my logic and intention. The four requests are different from each other in significant ways, and I notice you did not actually seem to read or speak to the differences in your near-copypaste responses to the four requests (you also asserted incorrect information in some of your responses). As far as everything else you've said, if it's the case that Wikipedia is regularly the only online resource which does not refer to things by their proper name, and the apparent rationale for this is MOSTM, then MOSTM is coming into conflict with COMMONNAME. You've chosen to take as overly hostile an earnest effort to correct a systemic error with this encyclopedia and accuse me of this that and the other, but in this conversation I've made clear I see this as tip of the iceberg. If I was meaning to be disruptive I would've submitted dozens of requests already. Your inability to read and then throw a fit is so typical of this website anymore. 122141510 (talk) 05:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

• ALLCAPS is in most cases pure commercial boosterism. I see no reason to allow this on WP. Tony (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

  MOSTM (as currently written) accounts for all of this in its first paragraph. We don’t reject all caps, leet lettering, and other odd stylings… but we are very reluctant to accept them.

  IF (and this is a huge “if”) the vast majority of independent reliable sources consistently present a name in all caps, then we know that presenting the name in all caps has transcended mere commercial boosterism. It becomes common usage. Then, and only then, should we accept it.

  It takes A LOT of time and effort to establish that the styling has transcended commercial boosterism, but WHEN it has, the guideline says we should accept it. Blueboar (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Moving Wikipedia:Vital articles proposals to the Village Pump

I find Vital articles system to be very useful. However, the engagement in Wikipedia talk:Vital articles seems limited. For example, proposals at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/3 usually seem to have less than 10 votes. Wouldn't we get more engagement if vital article proposals are moved to here? There can be an additional tab on top in the Village pump. At the very least, the top 3 levels could be discussed here. Bogazicili (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree that discoverability and participation are issues that affect much of the Wikipedia talk: namespace, but I don't think the solution is to start creating new Villages Pump for individual WikiProjects. Folly Mox (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox I agree. And I'm afraid I don't find it very useful and am not sure how reliable/objective it is. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Bogazicili, do you find that those ~10 editors are making bad decisions? If not, then you've already got enough people involved.

I understand the idea of wanting "more", on the emotional side. If I think something is important, then why isn't everyone else showing up? Having a lot of participants validates my belief that this is important. It's like getting a lot of 'likes' on social media: my discussion has 50 people in it, so that means it's important.

However, the point of those discussions is to make decisions, not to help us feel like we're involved in work that other people find important. Google used to put prospective candidates through 12 interviews. However, the answer rarely changed after the fourth interview. [2][3][4] The opinion of just four interviewers was enough in 95% of cases. Eventually, they decided that it was silly to have three times as many people involved as they actually needed, even if those people wanted to feel important. Their hiring process is no longer so burdensome, and is just as likely to make the right choice.

So I ask: Do you really think that we truly need more editors to answer a question about which subject to list? Or are the folks there already doing a fine job and already able to make good decisions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, yes, they sometimes make bad decisions. For example, I found some of the responses here nonsensical: [8]. To me, trains and climate change being both Level 3 is ridiculous. Bogazicili (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think those are unreasonable choices. Car and Ship are level 3, so Train probably should be level 3, too. That's what they chose. I understand your desire to have Climate change be level 2, on par with Earth, Climate, and Geology, but I also understand their decision to keep it on level 3, on par with Weather, Earth science, Atmosphere of Earth, and Pollution. It was not an unreasonable choice, even though it's not the one you wanted. I'm not convinced that involving more people would have changed the outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Solar system and moon are both level 2, so sometimes something that would be in a subcategory is on the same level with a parent article. I also didn't say involving more people would change the outcome. I am not sure why you felt the need to say that. What I am saying is this: as a principle, core Wikipedia-wide discussions should involve as many people as possible, and should be done on more frequently used places like the Village Pump. Bogazicili (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to give a contrarian (and personal) opinion… I really don’t give a rat’s ass about the various article rating systems. I pay no attention to them.

Now, I do understand that there are editors who LOVE rating articles. I have no problem with that. You do you. I think you are waiting your time, but it’s no skin off my teeth. Just don’t waist MY time with it.

So… I would be very annoyed if the Village Pump was suddenly cluttered up with discussions about article ratings. That wastes my time. Better to have these discussions take place out of sight, on a dedicated page where I can ignore them. End rant. 😉 Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be in a different tab, so not sure how that'd "waste your time" unless you click on the tab. Bogazicili (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

My apologies if I misunderstood. I thought you were proposing to move all of this to one of the existing VP pages. Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the principle that many editors should involve themselves in core Wikipedia-wide discussions, but would not characterise as such the importance shuffling within WikiProject Vital articles. Folly Mox (talk) 22:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Some kind some revive to the WP:ADCO

I was looking around some pages, and found the now defunct WP:ADCO. I thought that this would be a great idea to bring back in a way, as the amount of RFAs is dwindling, and I believe there is many Wikipedians who would want to start a RFA, but would find it too daunting. I am aware of programs such as WP:RFAPOLL, but believe we need something more. Now I don’t believe we can revive WP:ADCO in its entirety, but I think we can come up with something similar. Thanks, Lordseriouspig 05:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

My take on this is that anyone who needs coaching will not make a good admin. The quality needed (besides honesty, which I hope goes without question) is to "get" Wikipedia, which is very difficult to teach someone. The problem that we have with RfA goes much deeper than this. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Worth touching on WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE on the editing screen?

Since new editors very often start out by directing their primary attention toward the lead and infobox—on some articles sometimes receiving almost all their attention—I wonder if it wouldn't be worthwhile to mention very briefly that most information one puts there should be mentioned in the body of the article itself also. I feel bad reverting for this often, and if a chunk of new editors notice this before making their first edits, they may feel better able to continue contributing as they'll get bonked less by moody folks like yours truly.

Even so, I'm not quite sure we can justify it. For one thing, many (most?) will not immediately know what an infobox or lead section are. One would have to write it as a short addendum to

FYI

 – Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources.

I understand the sections of the MOS in question (MOS:LEAD, MOS:INFOBOX) are not core site policy on the same level as WP:COPY and WP:V. Still, might be worth brainstorming. Anyone got any miracle technical writing to share? Remsense诉 07:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Trizek (WMF) might be able to tell us whether an infobox-related note has been contemplated for mw:Help:Edit check.

More generally, if someone adds good information to the infobox, and that material should also be in the article (because, no matter what INFOBOXPURPOSE says, that's not always the case), why do you choose to revert it, instead of copying the material to the body of the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't listing all possible remedies since we all know how editing works here in the lab—I could've just said this but I mostly just meant to say "requires additional work and interference by other editors, whether reverting or revising." Remsense诉 21:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, what we have considered so far is on mw:Edit check/Ideas, which is open to more ideas. Trizek_(WMF) (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this by the way, @WhatamIdoing and @Trizek (WMF). Remsense诉 19:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Make UI more user-friendly

As a regular, I find the UI honestly dull. In an age where the Olympics has a webpage for the purpose of quizzes and games. I find that maybe Wikipedia would be touted as a technological marvel in 2015, but the year is 2024 and, in all honesty, Wikipedia is quite uninspiring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamesenior (talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

So, your title is "Make the UI more user-friendly", but your actual interest is "make the website something other than an encyclopedia"? Remsense诉 19:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 Cremastra (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is a technological marvel. There's a lot going on behind that UI. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a marvel that in 2024 there is a high-profile mainstream website that isn’t filled with ads, flashy junk, and trendy design churn. Well, as long as you think Vector 2022 was an improvement… Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 Folly Mox (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a great deal of potential in the notion of supporting a quiz/game interface with Wikipedia. It would not be part of Wikipedia per se, but would draw on and depend upon wikipedia. This could be, potentially, the 21st Century Trivial Pursuits. --03:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 03:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There is also a potential for interfacing generative AI into article enhancements in the following way ... Given Wikipedia Article X and Source Y, what propositions would be suitable to pursue for enhancement of the Wikipedia article (X) based on the newly propositioned citation (Y)? The beauty of this is that it provides suggestions to editors about how to contribute rather than working toward AI-based article revisions. Thoughts? --03:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 03:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a nice idea. I suppose people can already do this albeit in a clumsy, high friction way now that LLM context windows are large enough to cope with the entire contents of Article X and Source Y. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

But that's not that hard for a human to do. I think the effort of building that infrastructure for mediawiki would outweigh the total effort of doing it the way we do now. Cremastra (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No, a big part of the appeal of Wikipedia is being what it is, an encyclopedia, without tons of flashy distractions like games and stuff. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 Donald Albury 16:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

My favorite Wikipedia game is https://redactle.net/ It picks a random page from Wikipedia:Vital articles, blanks most of the words, and leave you to fill in the blanks by guessing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Then maybe you'll like Pedantle better still! Thincat (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Bot to block Proxy/VPN IPs (ST47ProxyBot replacement)

Hey folks, I'd like to get some thoughts on an adminbot that monitors RecentChanges and reactively blocks VPN/open proxy IPs it encounters. We used to have ST47ProxyBot which preemptively blocked such IPs, however the bot's operator, ST47, has indicated that they are no longer interested in running this bot. Long story short, there is a plethora of VPN/open proxies on the internet with new operators coming online every day; it has become technically unfeasible to identify and block all of these. Bad actors have been attacking our admin noticeboards with these VPNs/open proxies which has resulted in them being semi-protected for extended durations of time. That said, I'm interested in building an adminbot that monitors RecentChanges (or just the administrator noticeboards) for edits from VPN/open proxy IPs and blocks them (can optionally revert the most recent edit made by these IPs too). Noting for the record that some discussion on this has occurred here (permalink). Courtesy ping for @Robertsky. -Fastily 21:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have strong feelings against this one way or another. I share the concerns of others that, especially with developments in internet infrastructure over the past decade or two, it is much less simple to block open proxies now. But if an admin bot can accurately evaluate (with a sufficient level of accuracy) and block/revert, so what if it only catches 1% of the actual open proxies? I also think this should be evaluated as a “continuation” of the prior adminbot - even if it has slightly different code, from what I can see there was consensus for this type of adminbot before so absent significant new concerns about the stability/false positives now, should be fine for Fastily or another admin to take over the *task* even if doing it with different code. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thus far the disruptive IP addresses that have been blocked on the admin boards has proxy-like behaviours stated in the user information tool (that can be seen on the Contributions page). That can be a likely reliable signal/condition to revert and block such IP addresses if they touch on the admin boards. – robertsky (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Berchanhimez that this task doesn't seem like it should require a second consensus for approval, but if it does I support it. Folly Mox (talk) 11:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe for full transparency when this bot is activated, User:ST47ProxyBot should get -sysop at the same time, with each bot's user rights log message linking the other account. Folly Mox (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

A bot that monitors recent changes and reactively blocks VPN/open proxy IPs rather than preemptively may be a useful compromise. We already have a bot that monitors recent changes and logs VPNs/proxies at WP:OPD; it seems to log very many but perhaps not all, that will be dependent on the database. As an aside, I’ve never see so many blocked 'anonymizers' on that log, which is almost entirely due to the current disruption.

The current disruption is using a very particular anonymizing network so perhaps a focus on blocking that one preemptively would be helpful in the short term. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

we may need to fix wp:or

initial ideas

I think we may need to look at some possible ways to fix WP:OR. Apparently, one editor thinks it means you can't use any news media coverage for articles. i think their point is maybe that you can only use peer-reviewed articles to cover current events, since those are published findings? i think.

this whole thing kind of doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to me. anyway, I am trying to decide what to add to WP:OR. i have a few possible drafts, but i wanted to get this section started now. i hope to work on some possible drafts, and then post them soon. However, please feel free to comment now. Sm8900 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If the issue is just one editor misunderstanding the existing content then the solution is to explain to them what it actually means. If they cannot or will not understand that then the solution is to take action against that user to prevent their misunderstanding disrupting the encyclopaedia. Only if the misunderstanding is widespread is a rewrite of WP:OR likely to be needed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, that sounds pretty good. i could use a little heelp, actually. would you be willing to please add some input? you can find the article talk page easily, in my contribs history today. Sm8900 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

If we want a misinterpretation that's so wide-spread it has been written into the policy, how about we get rid of most of Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources? As far as I've ever seen, the distinction between "primary" and "secondary" is often unclear and seldom actually useful versus the nutshell of WP:OR itself, Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Even much of what's said in the PSTS section is just as true if you only read "source", ignoring the adjectives. Mostly the section seems a vehicle for people to reject a source for being "primary" (i.e. the opposite of the essay Wikipedia:Primary does not mean bad) instead of having a harder discussion about WP:RS and WP:DUE and the other parts of WP:OR. But I doubt this will go anywhere, too many people value exactly that vehicle. Anomie⚔ 15:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

section break 1 for comments, re wp:or

@Anomie Agree Sm8900 (talk) 15:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Anomie I agree too. I've lost count of the times that I've had to argue that for objective facts primary sources are often the most reliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

well this is helpful. I definitely suggest we think up some small options for revising WP:OR. Sm8900 (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree too. Secondary sources are fine when we have them, but the current wording seems to disfavour primary ones more than they deserve. Gawaon (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC

here is the kind of comment i have to deal with in opposiition to using perfectly good factual data, from perfectly reliable good sources from newspapers: The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument. It has no clear theme, thesis or point. It does not show an analysis. This would require secondary sources - preferably of good quality. That would then be encyclopedic content. Research is the analysis of primary material. Drawing together the data is the first step in research. The added text alludes to a thesis, which, if stated, would be OR (where the thesis does not exist in sources). But without this, the text lacks the cohesion and substance that would make it encyclopedic. If the thesis is not presented in sources, it probably isn't noteworthy - or perhaps it hasn't been found. Either way, the addition as made isn't supported.

unbelievable!! Sm8900 (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

so this comment is saying that absolutely no data can be gleaned from primary sources such as newspaper accounts, firsthand accounts, etc. really!! this is unbelievable!! is there anything we can do???!!! Sm8900 (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

so by this logic, even a published book would not be able to serve as valid source for self-efident objective facts, such as the book plot etc!!! this doesnt seem reasonable!!! Sm8900 (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Without more context, that's a discussion that probably needs to happen on the page where it's happening rather than here. "The text that would be added makes no coherent case or argument" is something one cannot judge without knowing the text in question. Gawaon (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gawaon, the talk page is at Talk:Iraq War. they are simply refusing to let me use newspaper articls that clearly show that major national leaders expressed opposition to the war years later. the question of whether that topic is needed is not the focus of the comment above; they are literally rejecting any use of newspaper articles, as clearly shown in the comment above. Sm8900 (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Instead of "getting rid of" PSTS, I suggested splitting it to its own policy page a while ago (1, 2, 3, probably others). It did not go well. We had really fundamental I-can't-believe-we-are-all-native-English-speakers-here levels of failure in communication. The most frustrating was trying to convince people that if we put the PSTS ==section== on a different page ►with a {{policy}} tag at the top, it would still be a policy. Editors thought that giving PSTS its very own {{policy}} page would be a demotion that would somehow make it stop being a policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

ok. @WhatamIdoing, that info is truly helpful. i was not aware of any of that. you are truly helping me to gain more knowledge on this. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow, yeah. Looks like you had two people there who had things absolutely backwards, seemingly convinced that whether a source is "primary" or "secondary" is critical to determining whether something is WP:OR or not rather than that WP:OR#PSTS is a (somewhat poor) heuristic for "source that will probably have the kind of analysis we need for a good article". Anomie⚔ 01:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe that news sources are good for basic facts, but their use should mostly end there. It's not that you should never use news articles as sources, but at a practical level the key is contemporary versus retrospective coverage. Real time contemporary sources definitely shouldn't be used to determine notability, provide analysis, explain effects or significance, etc. They lack the scope and context to make that possible. To avoid bogging down discussions every time this comes up, I wrote my full thoughts at User:Thebiguglyalien/Avoid contemporary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien ok, but the problem here is that we have people who are refusing to use newspaper articles at all. Sm8900 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

by this logic, you would never be able to write articles about opinions of major public figures at all. you would not be able to use a newspaper article to glean a public figure's opinions on anything, and you would need to someohow search for some complex thesis article when writing even about the most minor issues. Sm8900 (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's kinda the point? If no one else has ever written about the views of some major public figure on some topic in e.g. a book about the topic or the public figure, and the only place we can find that information is in some contemporary news article, then it's probably not important enough to include in an encyclopaedia article. Folly Mox (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

on the contrary, most historical statements get completely missed by secondary soruces. this is wikipedia. the historical coverage here is ten times more broad and more complete than any other reference works that are published. Sm8900 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Your impression of our historical coverage is roughly the reciprocal of my impression, ± a few orders of magnitude. And I'd posit that most historical statements are deliberately unmentioned by secondary sources, not "missed" during the research phase. Folly Mox (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, so then wikipedia is the repository for such statements, which most historical works and journal articles would otherwise miss entirely. Sm8900 (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and is WP:NOT. In all these years, has no one ever nudged you in the right direction and told you that you're supposed to be summarizing information from reliable secondary sources, proportional to how it appears in these sources? That you can't string together primary sources to support an argument? The historical works and journal articles have already decided what's significant enough to cover. We don't get to act like we know better than them; that would be original research and it would deviate from a neutral point of view. Surely at some point your work has seen scrutiny through a process like GAN or PR where a problem like this should have been noticed? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

ok sorry, i truly don't understand. so if a natural disaster, or an election, or a major coup, or a major government appointment occured within the last week or so, what sources should be used, other than newspaper articles? could you please clarify?

I think this discussion will go much better if we are simply open to asking questions, or expressing constructive ideas and opinions, and getting useful information. ok, so please feel free to clarify. thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If a simple fact needs updating like who holds a government office, then yes, a news article is fine to verify that. News articles might also be useful for basic facts, like if one mentions someone's date of birth for example. It's not that primary sources can never be used. It's that they don't dictate content. Like I said under section break 2, WP:PROPORTION lays it out plainly. An event or an opinion simply appearing in the news on its own isn't enough to say it needs to be in an article (let alone have its own article); millions of things appear in the news. But if a subject matter expert includes it in a journal, a book, or any sort of analysis, that's an indication that it might be WP:DUE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

ok. thats a valid reply. but then, why do we have articles on elections , coups, natural disasters, new laws, changes in government, etc? if no secondary soruces exist for such event when they are only two or three weeks in the past, then how can such articles exist? Sm8900 (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Political stuff like elections and coups get analyzed pretty much right away. There's already extensive analysis of the upcoming U.S. elections, and those are still months away. But in my opinion, people often jump the gun on creating articles about events like disasters or crimes, and they often have to get deleted eventually. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Folly Mox, if the only place we can find that information is in some contemporary news article, then thats why we would use the news article as the source for that, actually. Sm8900 (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

section break 2, re wp:or

• Sm8900, I took a Quick Look at the text you would like to add, and immediately saw why other editors are saying that it violates WP:OR. The text starts with a sweeping statement about the world’s view of the war and then attempts to support that statement by giving examples of politicians sharing that view. The examples are individually (and appropriately) supported by citing news sources, but… what is missing is a source that sums up these examples to reach the initial sweeping statement (a conclusion, even though it is written first).

This is classic original research. We can not take examples A+B+C and state conclusion D … unless we have a source that explicitly states A+B+C=D. This is precisely why WP:PSTS warns that primary sources must be used with caution. It is very easy to misuse them to inappropriately support original research. Blueboar (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

ok, i will change it simply to "some notable political leaders." Sm8900 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That does not resolve the Original research… the problem is that you (a Wikipedia editor) are the one combining these individual statements by various politicians to form a conclusion. What you need is a reliable secondary source that combines the statements by various politicians to reach some form of conclusion.

Weasle wording “some” also introduces DUE WEIGHT issues: why were the statements by these specific politicians chosen? Do they represent the majority view or are they cherry-picked outliers? Are there politicians who have contrary views?

Again… what you need to look for is a secondary source that notes what various politicians have said about the war, puts what they said into context and sums it up. Doing it yourself (even hedged by weasel wording) is where you engage in the original part of NOR. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Those kinds of secondary sources don't always exist, depending on the topic. And when reporting politicians positions and views, then published news articles seem totally acceptable as sources. Sm8900 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That's the point. If those secondary sources don't exist, then it should not be in the article. To quote WP:PROPORTION from the NPOV policy: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That sounds vastly exaggerated and non-proportional. Especially for recent events, it'll take years, if not decades, until they (maybe) get reliable coverage in secondary (later insertion: academic) ssources. Academics don't work so fast. Plus many films, series etc. may well get next to no coverage in secondary sources at all, despite meeting our notability criteria. If there are secondary sources, it's best to chiefly rely on them. If not, primary and tertiary sources may well come to the rescue, and that's a good thing. Gawaon (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC), edited 07:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If there's next to no coverage in secondary sources at all, then it is not notable. Per WP:GNG: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. If you think that means Wikipedia would have to ignore most current events, then you're correct. Wikipedia doesn't exist to document news. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I got confused a little bit. Generally I tend to think of secondary sources as academic sources, and I'd say those are indeed among the best sources we have. But I had somehow mentally classified newspaper coverage and such as tertiary sources. However, it seems they are generally considered secondary too. WP:NOR#Reliable sources even says that "magazines, journals ... published by respected publishing houses" as well as "mainstream newspapers" are among "the most reliable sources". So sure, a topic needs sufficient coverage in secondary sources, newspapers included, to get its own article, per WP:GNG. I absolutely agree on that. But note that the GNG is about whether a topic gets its own article, it's not about the article content at all. See WP:NNC. Here we're mostly talking about content, so the GNG doesn't apply. Gawaon (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

But WP:DUE certainly does apply to content. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gawaon Agree Sm8900 (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

section break 3, re wp:or

While some changes might be needed, I think I would be against "getting rid of most of Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources." In editing historical topics, I have found WP:PRIMARY useful. Users have, for example, tried to argue that Nathan Bedford Forrest wasn't actually racist or involved with the KKK, tried to argue that Mehmed II committed rape on the floor of the Hagia Sophia, etc., using primary sources. If accounts like these (memoirs, diaries, travel literature, ancient histories, etc.) aren't reinforced or repeated by scholars, they usually don't belong in there. I am definitely not arguing for a blanket ban on journalistic sources; the user you're telling about was clearly misinterpreting it. I am just saying how it has been useful for me.--MattMauler (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@MattMauler, thats very useful input. your statement here is very useful: I am definitely not arguing for a blanket ban on journalistic sources; the user you're telling about was clearly misinterpreting it. Sm8900 (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I would make two points. Firstly many editors seem to think that the distinction between primary and secondary sources is something that was made up by Wikipedians. It was not. It has long been used by historians and rather more recently by scientists. And secondly I get the impression that there is a generational divide here between us oldies, who grew up in the days before Wikipedia (and even the World Wide Web) existed, and remember encyclopedias that existed before Wikipedia supplanted them and that were nothing like newspapers, and the youngsters who seem to think that every web site has to be up-to-the-minute with breaking news. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Although our definitions of "primary" and "secondary" seem to match that about as well as WP:NOTABILITY matches wikt:notability. Anomie⚔ 20:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

without newspaper sources, half of wikipedia articles for events in the last 25 years wouldn't even exist. Sm8900 (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Good. Wikipedia isn't a news hosting service for random irrelevant stories that have no historical significance. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

thats ridiculous. countless articles use newspapers as sources and it is totally vital that they do so. Sm8900 (talk) 03:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Question re secondary sources

I'm finding it completely baffling to understand the objection to secondary sources. where is the secondary, non-journalistic source to tell you who is the Secretary of Agriculture? who is the governor of Maine? who is the director of budget for the city of Norfolk, Virginia? what is the current status of the Iraqi government? what is the current nature of the Q train in Brooklyn, New York? what are current plans for the BQE expressway in New York?

could someone please explain? --Sm8900 (talk) 03:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

furthermore, if an article is decribing any recent current event, then what source would they use other than news articles? there are dozens of examples, obviously. for example, if the article is covering the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, or the 2024 US presidential election, or the accession of King Charles of the UK, what sources would exist at all, other than news articles? I'm truly baffled by this. Sm8900 (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

we already have an article on the recent tragic plane crash in brazil. i don't want to detail it too much in this venue, out of respect for the human tragedy here. however, there would not be any source to use for details on this, other than newspapers. Sm8900 (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:PRIMARY. Generally speaking a primary source trumps a secondary when it is authoritative. In other words, the Secretary of Agriculture is whoever the Department of Agriculture says it is. When it comes to news sources, they can be primary sources and sometimes not. For current events, news sources may be the only sources available. However... primary sources must always be used with great care. It is fine to use them for facts, but you cannot draw conclusions from them. (WP:No original research) For this, secondary sources are required. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7, I Agree !! please note, my key point of agreement is with this statement of yours. please note, I'm saying this with sincere assent, as your statement on this seems fully valid to me!! For current events, news sources may be the only sources available. ....primary sources must always be used with great care. It is fine to use them for facts... [etc] Sm8900 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Last night I was reading Death in Yellowstone and the author talked about the dilemma of using newspapers: Newspapers, as every historian knows, must be used with care, most often as a supplement to more reliable sources. Unfortunately, with all of their potential inaccuracies, caused by deadlines, distance, and other factors, newspapers are sometimes our only sources for fleeting bits of history, pieces that get too easily lost in the forward march of time, and pieces of strictly local history that get published nowhere else. It caught my attention because of this ongoing discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, excellent insights indeed! Agree fully!! with two  ! thank you for that, so much!! Sm8900 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

can we make a rule against excluding newspapers as sources??!!

there seems to be some contradictory rhetoric going on, above on this page. we Wikipedia has articles such as 2024_United_Kingdom_riots#10_August, yet we have people in the section above stating outright that newspapers should not be used as sources. can we simply make it clear there is no basis for excluding newspapers as sources? this simply seems ridiculous. --Sm8900 (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Newspapers need to satisfy WP:RS requirements and be weighted accordingly with the claim made. There is extensive and nuanced discussion in WP:RSN to resolve disputes over reliability of said newspapers. Happy verifying! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 20:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

further example(s) below, of articles requiring newspapers as sources. this whole issue seems self-evident to me.

• 2024 Ecuadorian conflict Sm8900 (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Shushugah, thats a helpful item to note, thanks. Sm8900 (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we can make blanket rules. See WP:MEDPOP for an example of when we shouldn't be using newspapers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we can make a blanket rule that no source should be excluded based solely on what type of source it is. Sometimes using a newspaper is appropriate, sometimes using a newspaper is in appropriate - but in neither case is that because it's a newspaper it's because of the combination of the context of the Wikipedia article and the context of the specific source article. Indeed WP:MEDPOP explicitly says the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible. An excellent newspaper article about a treatment that explains it in appropriate context without oversimplification etc might be the best available for the topic, conversely articles in peer review journals get retracted and those should not be used (other than for WP:ABOUTSELF and similar purposes).

One I've seen a few times is editors rejecting a youtube video as a source because it's a youtube video. Some youtube videos are top quality reliable sources, some are active disinformation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

yes, I agree with @Thryduulf on their comments on this, as stated above.

• I think we can make a blanket rule that no source should be excluded based solely on what type of source it is.
• One [problem] I've seen a few times is editors rejecting a youtube video as a source because it's a youtube video. Some youtube videos are top quality reliable sources, some are active disinformation.

Sm8900 (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we can not (and should not) “ban” citing news media… however, I do think that we often cite news sources inappropriately. There is a more nuanced discussion that needs to take place: When is it appropriate to cite news media, and (perhaps more importantly) when is it inappropriate to do so? Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar, awesome insight and idea. i'm hoping discussion can proceed, and address the possible refinement that you have helpfully added and expressed above. thanks!!! Sm8900 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

OR is working well and as intended, actually

This discussion wasn't making much sense to me until I read Talk:Iraq War#suggest we need a section on "political impact", and then everything fell into place. Sm8900 is trying to add a section on the war's political impact which synthesises quotes he's selected from various American politicians into sweeping statements like By 2016, the public consensus in both major parties of the United States was that the Iraq War was based on invalid reasons, did not accomplish anything positive, and was highly detrimental. Other editors are correctly pushing back on this because this is a conclusion he has drawn himself rather than a conclusion drawn from a source. This is good. There is no problem here. – Teratix ₵ 06:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

it is not good, and your dismissal of this topic shows your approach.

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with adding a section to describe politicians' opinions on any particular policy issue, using newspaper accounts and articles as sources. it is entirely possible that my own draft on that specific topic needs to be changed or improved, or perhaps discarded if it does not have consensus. that does not change the larger issue here.

your obvious goal is to cause some degree of personal upset here. by the way, @Teratix, all that's needed for WP:Civil to be needed here, is for one of us to state that the other one is acting discourteously. that is it. I will be glad to show you basic courtesy, and ask only the same thing in return. Sm8900 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

re the public consensus on the Iraq War, when Jeb Bush did not express strong opposition to the Iraq War during the 2016 campaign, he was widely criticized, both by major candidates and also by major media outlets, so in the end he did need to reverse his approach.

and newspaper articles which provide broad overviews of a major societal consensus or reaction, are indeed valid sources in this regard. maybe we need to open a section to address the larger issues here? oh wait, thats right, that's precisely what this section is. Sm8900 (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

in short, your objections above may indeed be valid re my own proposed text for that specific article. with that said, the topics of this discussion here at village pump are entirely different. editors here are entirely free to agree or disagree with my ideas here on the topic of WP:OR, as they see fit.

however i think it is obvious that any editor would find it somewhat demeaning to see their own ideas on one article brought into the discussion as an absolutely non-relevant tangent, in a page section which relates to other issues entirely. i am trying to indeed grant the validity of anyone's views who may wish to disagree with my approach for the proposal at that specific article as you cite above. Sm8900 (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

any editor would find it somewhat demeaning to see their own ideas on one article brought into the discussion as an absolutely non-relevant tangent. By your own account, the pushback you received from other editors regarding your proposed addition on Talk:Iraq War was the impetus for starting this discussion in the first place. You, yourself, have quoted and mentioned the discussion in the above sections. Why would you do that if you didn't think it to be relevant?

there is absolutely nothing wrong with adding a section to describe politicians' opinions on any particular policy issue, using newspaper accounts and articles as sources There is a problem when you draw conclusions that the sources do not reach themselves, when the section gives certain perspectives undue weight or when there are higher-quality sources available that could be used instead. These problems were why your proposed Iraq War section was rejected.

that does not change the larger issue here. The point is, despite what you think, there is no larger issue here. Editors applied the policy exactly how they are supposed to, they got the right result, Wikipedia is better off than it would have been. Changing the policy would make things worse.

I'm not out to upset you. I just think your ideas about how Wikipedia works, and how it ought to work, are badly, badly wrong. It's not personal. – Teratix ₵ 15:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• You, yourself, have quoted and mentioned the discussion in the above sections. Why would you do that if you didn't think it to be relevant? correct, i mentioned the specific views on the question of what sources can be used, since thats the topic of this section here at village pump. i did not belittle any of the replies that disagreed with me on the specific proposal for that specific article.
• There is a problem when you draw conclusions that the sources do not reach themselves, when the section gives certain perspectives undue weight .. these problems were why your proposed Iraq War section was rejected. i'm completely ok that there may be flaws or problems with my proposed text for that article, and that the community may choose to disagree or indeed reject the proposed text for that article, if it chooses.
• The point is, despite what you think, there is no larger issue here. Editors applied the policy exactly how they are supposed to, they got the right result, with respect, pelase read the mutilple replies i have received above, that agree with my views on the larger issue here. thats the whole point of opening this question for wider discussion here, where the community can comment.
• I'm not out to upset you..... It's not personal. ok, noted. I'm fully willing to accept your reply on that, as helpful, and as constructive, and as responsive to my concerns. i do appreciate your reply, on that note. thanks.

Sm8900 (talk) 16:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Content assessment tweaks

Since Content assessment was decoupled from individual WikiProjects, I'd like to develop an idea regarding how it can be tweaked. Currently assessments for Stub-class to B-class can be placed on a talk page by any editor, but the manner in which reassessment is done can be a little tricky. If an editor wants to have their article reassessed (such as moved up from Start to C class), where to do this is currently a little convolluted.

This can be asked on the article talk page, but most talk pages on Wikipedia are will not yield a result, as they are either empty or inactive or both. Or it can be asked on a WikiProject page, which is still not a guarantee of getting it answered (also, might defeat the point of unlinking content assessment from WikiProjects in the first place). Or it can be asked on Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment – which doesn't make sense technically. Surely WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment should be about articles relating to Wikipedia, instead of acting as a general catch-all page as it currently does.

My question is – how could this be optimised? For example, should assessment requests be moved to one centralised location? If so, where? Hope village pump can help me here DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Other than promotion to GA or FA status, very few editors pay attention to article assessments… so we don’t actually need clear cut criteria or a process for assessment. We can rely on editorial judgement.

If you think an article should be assessed as being in a certain “class”, feel free to mark it so. If someone else disagrees, discuss it on the article’s talk page. Blueboar (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and marking an assessment totally independently, without any input from others is and would remain a valid way to assess an article. However, some people may not wish to do this and may want to have an uninvolved editor look at the page. This is the problem I would like to address DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If there is benefit in an editor being able to request someone else take a look at an article and seeing whether they think the quality assessment is correct then I can think of two approaches that might work:

• A central location in which to ask.
• A template that can put on an article talk page that populates a category.

In both cases WikiProject article alerts should be generated to aid discoverability by editors interested in the relevant topic area.

Whether there is benefit in such a system is a different question, but I think the answer is yes. Even if it's optional in most cases, someone who was heavily involved in rewriting the article or who has a COI with regard to the subject or who is a declared paid editor may want to (in the latter two cases probably should) ask for another editor's opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Either could be suitable – although a central location may be the better option. In my personal experience, categories don't tend to lead to actions being taken DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If I come across an assessment that is clearly wrong on an article I am involved with, I simply edit out the assessment. By means that are completely mysterious to me someone eventually comes along and (re)assesses it. Thincat (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

What? DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@DimensionalFusion I think @Thincat is saying that if an article they are involved with is rated as e.g. start class but they believe that is clearly wrong they will simply remove the assessment rank, meaning the formerly start class article is now unassessed class. In their experience these articles then get a new rating (that presumably more closely matches their opinion) from somebody else without any additional input from them (i.e. they make no requests anywhere). They don't know how the people who do the new assessment become aware that this needs doing (although my guess is that they're patrolling e.g. Category:Unassessed United Kingdom articles). Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes! Thincat (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

In my experience that doesn’t tend to lead to articles being reviewed, either because it is a broad topic (leading to a huge backlog) or because it has a very inactive wikiproject DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Question: other than GA and FA, does it actually matter if an editor self-assesses an article they have worked on? Blueboar (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No, an editor would be completely entitled to change the rank themselves. But again some editors wouldn’t want to do this and would want an uninvolved editor to take a look at it. I’m thinking of proposing a central location to replace Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment DimensionalFusion (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

DimensionalFusion, content assessment between "stub" and "GA" is meaningless. No one is likely to respond to a request to reassess article quality unless you're taking it through a formalised peer review process, and editors interested enough in the topic would likely respond better at any centralised venue to a generic hey I just created / expanded Topic; improvements welcome than to a request for reassessment.

If you're not comfortable changing the assessment rating yourself on articles you've significantly contributed to, turn on WP:Rater in Special:Preferences, and use whatever it suggests with the default edit summary. If you want other editors to take a serious look at your work, take it through WP:GA. Folly Mox (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If content assessment between "stub" and "GA" is meaningless then why does it exist at all?

Anyway, for people who know that an article does not meet GA standards but want it to be looked at/rated by another editor, if only for 15 seconds, would create a massive waste of time in taking it to GAN as you suggest, which already has a massive backlog. One of the ways to reduce that backlog would be to improve the process for content assessment, no?

A centralised location like what Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment is (but should not be) providing would help this, no? DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As someone mentioned below, they're mostly an historical artefact, leftovers from the days when WikiProjects roamed still. I don't know why we still have them. My apologies if it seemed like I was recommending taking a known sub–GA-quality article through GA. I miscommunicate sometimes. What I meant is that other editors are not likely to invest significant time reviewing work that the primary contributors have not already invested significant time into.

We might not be seeing eye to eye on this because I'm experiencing disagreement with your problem statement. To me, reassessment has never felt tricky: if I've improved an article and notice its rating feeling out of sync, I'll update it. Also the notion of a venue where someone might be guaranteed a response doesn't feel in alignment with the state or ethos of the project.

I suppose you could just remove the rating on articles you've recently improved, which should lead to someone else assessing them eventually. Folly Mox (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

How soon will eventually be though? As far as I'm aware, the Citation needed category for example hasn't led to many articles having citations added

But I see your point. The problem (or, the reason) behind CA is that nobody cares about anything other than FA and GA. DimensionalFusion (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

In theory, the rating helps copyeditors find good-enough articles to bring to GA and major content adders to transform stubs. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

does this actually happen? DimensionalFusion (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

That would be pretty hard to determine. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Recent backlog drives at WikiProject Unreferenced articles and WikiProject Reliability have used maintenance categories to improve the project, but it really does seem like that kind of organised effort is what it takes to budge the needle even a little bit on highly populated maintenance categories.

At some point last year WikiProject Stub improvement was reactivated to expand stub-class articles, which didn't last long since there were an overabundance of false stubs. I blame myself for rating some of these upwards out of the stub categories without significant expansion.

I don't have good anecdata for routes to GA, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone taking an article there on the basis that it was already B-class. I have seen B-class used in guidance once or twice, like at H:YFA, where newcomers modeling their first article on existing examples are advised to make sure their model is at least B-class.

As to my eventually above, that's difficult to predict, and I don't have time at the moment to look into how long articles remain unassessed, nor even how to formulate a method of checking. Late for work, Folly Mox (talk) 11:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Given the amount of outrage declared paid editors doing anything that could be seen as advancing the interests of their employer (regardless of whether this aligns with Wikipedia's interests) causes among some sections of the community, I think some method of requesting an independent assessment is warranted. Personally I don't see them doing this as an issue at all, but I recognise my views regarding paid editing are a lot more relaxed than the average. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

What does paid editing have to do with content assessment? Gawaon (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If a paid editor has contributed significantly to an article, should they be allowed to change the rating of that article themselves? As I say I don't have a problem with that (as long as it's not to GA/A/FA, but that applies to everyone) but given how controversial paid editing is I suspect some people will have a problem with it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Uh, the problem here is the paid editing, not the content assessment, I'd say. Gawaon (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that there is absolutely NO BENEFIT to be gained from changing an article assessment from “Start” to “C” (or even “B”)… why would it matter if the changer was paid to do so? Blueboar (talk) 13:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Blueboar If there is "absolutely no benefit" why do we have three different ratings? Is telling a client you improved their article from "C" to "B" not a benefit?

@Gawaon neither paid editing or content assessment is a "problem", I think you're misunderstanding this discussion. The question being asked in this discussion is "Should there be some central location or other method for editors to request a different editor re-assess the quality of a given article?" This cannot be answered without answering the question "Is there a reason and/or benefit to requesting another editor do this rather than just doing it themself?". My view is that the answer to the second question is "yes", giving a paid editor as one example scenario of when it would/might be better for another editor to do it. Paid editing is controversial (imo way more controversial than it should be, but that's beside the point) but it is not, in and of itself, a problem. Content assessment is not a problem, but an individual editor reassessing the quality of their own work might be a problem in some circumstances. Given that such circumstances exist, I see benefit in their being a way to avoid the problem. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It's like Blueboar says: Ratings are a hint to other editors, our readers will in general neither see nor care about them, and the payer probably won't either. Gawaon (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Thryduulf- To be blunt, we don’t need all these ratings. The original intent was to help wikiprojects figure out which articles needed the most collaboration (we would focus on high “importance”, low “quality” assessments first).

However, as more and more wikiprojects became moribund, the ratings system became increasingly irrelevant. They are now little more than an ego boost (it’s nice to think that you improved an article to a “higher” level). Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Iridescent/Archive 45 § Assessment streamlining (2021) remains the most edifying thread on this topic that I'm aware of. Folly Mox (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t care enough either way but if I could; I would simplify assessments to Stubs, Start, GA, FA. I have never ever used B, C, A classes. If an article can be improved, then do it! These debates about their classes could be better spent on improving the content however much or little. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 15:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Folly, thanks for the link. I note that the 2021 discussion focused on GA and FA… while this discussion seems focused on the lower assessments (Mostly “c” and “b” class). Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Only big and active WikiProjects like MILHIST use class A. IMO it's good that B-class exists as it has actual, tighter criteria, and the banners always give tick marks for which specific criteria need improvement.
I do agree that there need not be a centralized, stringent discussion forum for these ratings. They are not supposed to be formal, and I agree with Blueboar. The assessments are working as they should. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that assessments in their current form are not working as they should. Rating an article as GA or FA gets that article more recognition as they get a topicon, and can be featured in DYK or today's featured article.

Rating an article as A-Class, B, C, Start, or Stub does... nothing. Originally they alerted WikiProjects as to how much an article needs improving but since WikiProjects are no longer giving out ratings this seems irrelevant. Which leads to the obvious question – what is the point of content assessment? But that discussion is most likely out of the scope of this idea lab.

If I personally had control over the process then I'd rename A-Class (something like Quality article), and consolidate B and C class into one. DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The ratings provide the exact same information regarding article quality to Wikiprojects as they did before. The change to a single rating did not affect their Wikiproject functionality, all the categories etc. still work. CMD (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The big question is – does content assessment, through wikiprojects or otherwise, help improve Wikipedia? Because from personal experience, lots of wikiprojects seem to not actually undertake coordinated efforts to improve articles, much less using content assessment to do so.

But this is getting off topic, anyway DimensionalFusion (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It certainly helps at the upper end (GA and FA)… I don’t think the lower end (from Start through B class) is of much use. However, it doesn’t harm anything to have these levels… so… meh. Blueboar (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, it's not a big question as we know the answer already. They're there if someone wants to use them; if they don't want to use them, no harm done. CMD (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally disagree with this – if it isn't going to be consistent what's the point of having it at all DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

We have a single long-standing set of criteria defining each assessment rank that has been pretty consistent over time. Editors apply these based on their best interpretation, up to and more or less also including GA. CMD (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

For the people who don't know about our content assessment processes:

• The most important level is B class This is implicitly the minimum requirement for DYK and ITN.
• GA is B class with a review It is, like Start, C and B, a low level. Since the review is conducted by only one editor, YMMV.
• Our highest level is A class This involves reviews by multiple editors from a project.
• FA is similar to A class, but reviewers are drawn from all projects. However, unlike all the other levels, there are limits on the articles that can be submitted.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

^*trying to be helpful*(Hawkeye means this is guideline that WP:MILHIST follows). I thought ITN required only non-stub status?. Schierbecker (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't find anything at Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines about being assessed as B class. Schazjmd (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

DYK requires Start-class (because their minimum length exceeds a stub).

@Folly Mox (and others), these ratings are primarily for the WP:1.0 team, which uses them for offline/curated releases. The difference between Stub and GA is important to their algorithm. They consider factors like popularity, centrality (=incoming links), and WikiProject ratings (i.e., to identify articles that humans say are important but that otherwise might be skipped). All else being equal, an article with higher ratings in terms of either quality or importance/priority is more likely to make the cutoff. Most of that group's work is coordinated off wiki these days, but AIUI they are still active.

(Search engines don't care, so a spammer/paid editor shouldn't, either.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the time, anything well-cited is gonna be B-class, though it could be C-class or start-class if it's short. While ITN doesn't have this criterion, DYK's length criterion means it's usually B-class. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirects to Film categories

For context, I am primarily an editor in the Simple Wikipedia, although I occasionally edit here. Many Wikipedia readers and editors switch to Simple Wikipedia by changing the domain from "en" to "simple", and back. This works well until you get into categories involving films. In simple wikipedia, "films" are referred to as "movies". In English Wikipedia, the only redirect that redirects you from "movies" to "films" is Category:Movies. I wonder if it would be possible or even a good idea to create every related Film category and create a Movie redirect page for it. For example, Category:1942 movies would redirect to Category:1942 films. This would also go for any templates, articles, etc., that would be related. I think this would be a good idea since this is an often enough redirect target, and the words are basically synonyms. I would also wonder if there is a way to automate this. Thank you. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 04:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

From anecdotal experience, most people do not know how to edit the URL bar. To go to a site like YouTube.com, they'd Google YouTube even though there's a YouTube suggestion that pops up before they hit enter. I doubt that changing the domain is the primary way of switching against Simple Wikipedia.

I'd recommend using the language switcher (文_A at the top of the screen) to switch between these wikis; after a while of switching with it, the switcher will pick up that you primarily switch between these wikis and put the targets under "suggested languages". Aaron Liu (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

While this may be true in some aspects, that is a very broad and unreasonable assumption of many It is still a very common and reasonable way to switch between wikis. In any case, “movie” is a reasonable redirect for anybody to search up. MrMeAndMrMe_Talk 14:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Naming convention for Uzbek names

Although thirty years have passed since the government of Uzbekistan decided to switch to the Latin script, the use of Cyrillic remains widespread, and the Latin script in use is widely considered inadequate to say the least. There's growing pressure to change it, particularly the letters Oʻ/oʻ and Gʻ/gʻ which are particularly problematic. However, so far no political will has materialized.

On Wikipedia, Uzbek names present many challenges, which I discuss in some detail below. Maybe this discussion will lead to a naming convention, which would be quite helpful. I can't start drafting one yet, as I don't have all the answers. Maybe after discussing the issue here, a task force could be put together to start drafting a proposal.

Distinct characters

Google's Uzbek keyboard uses U+02BB ʻ / U+02BC ʼ

The letters Oʻ/oʻ and Gʻ/gʻ (and the tutuq belgisi ʼ denoting a glottal stop or a long vowel) are a nightmare (See Uzbek alphabet#Distinct_characters). Basically, while it's clear that the straight English apostrophe should not be used, there is no official guidance on whether U+02BB ʻ MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA / U+02BC ʼ MODIFIER LETTER APOSTROPHE or U+2018 ‘ LEFT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK / U+2019 ’ RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK should be used to properly render these two letters and the tutuq belgisi. Unicode.org states the former should be used. The Uzbek Wikipedia also favors U+02BB/U+02BC, and Google's Uzbek keyboard uses these characters.

However, Uzbek sources often use both—sometimes within the same text—and some do not distinguish between the modifier letter turned comma and the modifier letter apostrophe, instead opting for the straight English apostrophe, which is incorrect. Here's an example of an unfortunate Uzbek name that contains both problematic characters:

	U+02BB ʻ / U+02BC ʼ	U+2018 ‘ / U+2019 ’	Straight Apostrophe	Romanization through Russian
Spelling Variant	Yoʻdosh Aʼzamov	Yo‘ldosh A’zamov	Yo'ldosh A'zamov	Yuldash Agzamov
Sources	English (Yoʻldosh Aʼzamov) and Uzbek (uz:Yoʻldosh Aʼzamov) Wikipedias, Uzbek academic publications (Journal of New Century Innovations), Uzbek newspapers (Platina, Yuz)	Uzbek academic publications (Journal of Culture and Art), Uzbek newspapers (Daryo, Dunyo, Kun,Xabar)	Bloggers (Xurshid Davron), handful of Uzbek newspapers (Uzreport), average Joe	Websites that rely on Russian sources (Bolshoi Theatre of Uzbekistan, IMDb), local journal articles in English (Oriental Journal of Social Sciences)

The question is: should we, like on the Uzbek Wikipedia, formally agree on which pair of characters to use in Uzbek words? I've been using U+02BB ʻ / U+02BC ʼ, but other editors might be using, or may have already used, U+2018 ‘ / U+2019 ’ instead.

On a related note, when a new page is created here on enwiki, the U+02BB/U+02BC pair poses no challenges. However, if the article is misspelled, as in the case of Yodgor Sa'diyev, moving it becomes impossible. "Yodgor Sa'diyev" is clearly wrong: reliable Uzbek sources use both U+02BC (Kknew, Zamin; Ministry of Internal Affairs) and U+2019 (Daryo, RFE/RL's Uzbek Service, Xabar), but not the English apostrophe. The handful of English sources that I could find on Yodgor Saʼdiyev use the Romanization of his name in Russian (Yodgor Sagdiev: Uz Daily) or a mix of his Uzbek + Romanized Russian name (Yodgor Sagdiyev: President.uz)! Since there is no single variant used in English sources, I decided to move the article to the Uzbek Latin spelling. (Although, as mentioned above, there isn't one standard Uzbek spelling, but this still seemed the best option.). However, when I tried to move the page to Yodgor Sa’diyev (with U+02BC), the following error popped up:

The page "Yodgor Sa'diyev" cannot be moved to "Yodgor Saʼdiyev" because the title "Yodgor Saʼdiyev" matches an entry (?!(User|Wikipedia)( talk)?:|Talk:)\P{L}*\p{Latin}.*[^\p{Latin}\P{L}ʻ].* <moveonly> # Latin + non-Latin on the local or global blacklists. If you believe that this move is valid, please consider requesting the move first.

When I tried to move it to Yodgor Sa’diyev (with U+2019), I got the following error:

The page title that you have attempted to create contains a right single quotation mark (’) Unicode character. Per MOS:STRAIGHT, such characters should not normally be used in page titles. Please replace it with a standard apostrophe, or a modifier letter turned comma (ʻ) or modifier letter apostrophe (ʼ) character if appropriate, and try again. If you got here by clicking on a red link in an article, you should go back and fix the link first.

Talk about a Catch-22! When there are no English sources and it's appropriate to use the Uzbek spelling, what should I do if I cannot move a misspelled page name due to the technical issues mentioned above? Should I request a name change every time I encounter an Uzbek word wrongly spelled with the English apostrophe, or can we make an exception for Uzbek names to facilitate moving articles?

As a page mover, I should be able to move over the title blacklist, so asking at WP:RM/TR could be an option. However, I notice the page has already been moved in the past, so maybe it is best to discuss it first. On that note, if you end up having a lot of them to request and consensus is that they should indeed be moved to the modifier letters turned commas/apostrophe, asking for the page mover right yourself could also be an option. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Romanization through Russian

Since Soviet times, Uzbek names have tended to be crudely transliterated into Russian, especially in official documents such as passports. As you can see in the table above, Йўлдош Аъзамов (Yoʻldosh Aʼzamov in the modern Latin script) was written as Юлдаш Агзамов in Russian, and English sources relying on Russian transliterate it as Yuldash Agzamov (see the table above for sources).

Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should generally use the most commonly used English spelling ("as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources"). Are sources in broken English, like the ones mentioned above, sufficient for this purpose? While the current policy states "When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly", it would be helpful to have a general policy for such cases, as most Uzbeks have multiple names, and the Romanization of Uzbek names through Russian is unlikely to stop any time soon.

Listing all the different spelling variants

When a given entity has many different names, it's helpful to list them in the relevant entry. Over the years, I've variously formulated the existence of different spellings while creating content here on enwiki. For instance, in Yoʻldosh Aʼzamov, I wrote:

Yoʻldosh Aʼzamov (sometimes spelled Yuldash Agzamov in English) (Uzbek: Yoʻldosh Aʼzamov, Йўлдош Аъзамов; Russian: Юлдаш Агзамов; May 10, 1909 – June 16, 1985) was...

In the recent entry on Olim Xoʻjayev, I added the following footnote:

Uzbek Cyrillic: Олим Хўжаев; Russian: Алим Ходжаев, romanized Alim Khodzhaev.

There are also Uzbeks like Hamza Hakimzade Niyazi who almost exclusively wrote their name in the Arabic script, and there are many reliable sources that use his name in the Arabic script. This complicates things even further. Is it best to specify all the various spellings in the lead section, or is it better to list them in a footnote? Either way, how should I word it so that it doesn't get too clunky but at the same time lets the reader know that multiple spelling variants exist? It would be really helpful to have some sort of rule of thumb for such cases.

P.S. I create redirects from all the known spellings to the main entry whenever I can. While I haven't encountered any issues on this, a future naming convention should probably have some guidance on redirects as well. Nataev ^talk 19:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Central hub for WikiProjects

I think there should be a central hub for WikiProjects which would provide a space for editors to collaborate on all topics (yes vanilla wikipedia is a collaborative project but note that some editors are more open to collaboration whilst others prefer to work independently, this taps into the former). At the moment WPs are isolated from one another, and collaboration is often limited to within a single WP, when most articles have multiple WP banners and scopes overlap. This central hub could be called something like WP:WikiProject Hub and incorporate the directory (unsure whether WP:WikiProject Council would be best kept technically separate). It could have a resource that people could submit articles to that they would like to collaborate on (eg. most recent at the top, off the list after 2 weeks) and users could filter out/in WikiProjects technically based on the WP banners. I'm sure there's lots of other resources and uses it could provide that I can't think of right now Kowal2701 (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

i could support this idea, depending on the details. however, you should check out WikiProject Council, to see if this existing resource overlaps with your idea. Sm8900 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest you could call it "WikiProject Cafe." that's a word which easily lends itself to this use, and yet has not been used for actual items here, so far. Sm8900 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It'd be like an actual WikiProject, and other WikiProjects would sort of be sub projects of it. I don't know whether WP:WikiProject Council would be best kept separate as a sort of regulator and help hub while this would strictly be for collaboration on articles etc. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

oh. well ok, but sorry that sounds overly broad. i don't really see a role for that. sorry.if you want to see why an overly generalized wikiproject might not work, please look at WikiProject History. let me know what you think, if you want. Sm8900 (talk) 20:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

all WP:HIST needs is taskforces for different regions and periods. I really think the lack of collaboration between projects hurts wikipedia and there's a lot of potential here Kowal2701 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, well you have my support for that. could you please come by WikiProject History, and get that going? I can give you my support for that. Sm8900 (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, although not sure about the best approach and I'm wary of wasting people's time. Do we immediately ping people to a discussion about taskforces with minimal initial comment or do we make a fleshed out proposal and then ping everyone? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

in general, it's neither. you simply create the task force with like-minded editors, in areas that you yourself would be interested in editing. that's not an official rule or method, in any way; it is simply my own personal opinion. Sm8900 (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

there're already taskforces for each continent, is it not just about reviving those and maybe merging WP:WikiProject European history into a taskforce? If people support it, we should probably discuss it with the people at WP Council, they've expressed similar ideas Kowal2701 (talk) 21:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

sure, revive those. if you find people interested, then go ahead! Sm8900 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

"all WP:HIST needs is taskforces" – No, what HIST needs is people. A collection of task force pages is worse than worthless if there aren't lots of people involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, @WhatamIdoing is actually doing a better job of providing a relevant and helpful reply here than I am,actually. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It's got over 300 members, if it were to be reorganised all could be pinged to a post which lists the taskforces, and hopefully enough would engage with them to keep them all sustainable Kowal2701 (talk) 21:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, sorry but there is no practical benefit to doing so. editors generaly edit whatever topics inteest them at the moment. there is little to be gained by organizing a whole lot of task forces which no one is already showing an interest in, actually. Sm8900 (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, editors often have narrower interests than just history, which makes WP:HIST too broad like you said. If there was a push to organise the project around taskforces I think enough people might be inclined to engage with them especially considering only a small proportion of the large membership would be needed. I think it's worth a go rather than leaving it semi-active/inactive Kowal2701 (talk) 21:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder how many of those "members" are actually active these days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I’d assume 150, but with the taskforces that don’t get off the ground we could just message contributors. Idk, it entirely depends on whether there’s appetite for it Kowal2701 (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kowal2701, can you describe your idea in concrete terms, with examples?

I can't tell if this is "I want one group of editors to be in charge of all the other groups of editors" (a WP:WikiProject is a group of editors) or if this is "I want a multidisciplinary group of editors". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No this is nothing to do with authority or even a group of editors necessarily. It's a restructuring of the wikiproject system. Think of a tree diagram where you have

central hub --> wikiprojects --> taskforces

Kowal2701 (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the central hub? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

To serve as a central place for collaboration on Wikipedia. Where people can collaborate on topics without a WikiProject. A place where WikiProjects can collaborate with one another. To macro manage WP’s coverage. Where WikiProjects can notify people of initiatives etc. To foster collaboration and make a healthier culture. I’m sure there are other uses. I think the resource mentioned in the initial post might be a good core idea. Kowal2701 (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There are basically no topics that don't fall within the scope of an existing WikiProject.

Cross-project collaboration is relative rare, probably because "editors often have narrower interests", to quote your words above, but interdisciplinary collaboration is common, and even has multiple thematic groups (e.g., Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation, Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles).

If "macro manage" means "tell people that we need more articles about X or fewer about Y", then it's doomed because we're WP:VOLUNTEERS, but the Village pumps serve that purpose. The Village pumps are also where groups can notify others of their initiatives; WP:VPM is usually the most popular for routine announcements.

Creating yet another forum for communication is not usually helpful. See https://xkcd.com/1810/ ("Chat systems") and think about the problem of walled gardens (a handful of pages/people end up isolated from everyone else, leading to drift) and local consensus (e.g., we declare our group to be the One True™ group for deciding whether Our™ articles get an infobox, and we make sure that nobody else gets notified about or invited to participate in these conversations, because Those Other Editors might disagree with us). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense, I think there’s some merit to it but there’s too many ways it could fail and it’d take a lot of community resources and time which might not be worthwhile. Tbh with you I just really like the resource mentioned in the initial post, if that could be incorporated into an existing page I’d be satisfied. People really like serendipity and this could provide that, and bypass the isolation of WPs. It is also entirely voluntary, people can submit articles they’re working on that they’d like more input in and others can choose anything that intrigues them. It sort of serves to direct people I guess Kowal2701 (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Articles for improvement. CMD (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s really great. Maybe another list/page with a list could be added which didn’t have nominations so anyone can add an article regardless of importance or page views and it stays on the list for a month and people can filter by WP banners? Kowal2701 (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiProjects are groups of people, and you probably don't want to filter by "WhatamIdoing and her wiki-friends". If you'd like to be able to filter by topic area, then the WMF did some research a few years back, and found that articles could almost always be classified into a couple dozen categories under four main headings of Culture (includes biographies), Geography, History/Society, and STEM. See mw:ORES/Articletopic#Taxonomy for the full list.

Having said that, if you just want a place to tell people what you're working on, then I suspect that Wikipedia:Discord might be a better match that anything on wiki. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest that Movement Strategy Forums might be a good venue as well. Sm8900 (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

It’s more you filter by topic area, so you if you’re interested in say 5 topics, you just filter for them, it’s not necessarily about collaborating with those WikiProjects but with people on the articles for improvement page. Those groups are good, but I imagine it’d be a lot easier technically to use WP banners as identifiers for which topics the article is a part of Kowal2701 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

If the resource was made, it could have a signpost about it which would attract more to use it as both submitters and browsers Kowal2701 (talk) 15:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)