Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

"WP:PROPOSE" redirects here. For proposing article deletion, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion requests.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:

• Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals. You may also wish to search the FAQ.
• This page is for concrete, actionable proposals. Consider developing earlier-stage proposals at Village pump (idea lab).
• Proposed policy changes belong at Village pump (policy).
• Proposed speedy deletion criteria belong at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.
• Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
• Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.
• Proposed new articles belong at Wikipedia:Requested articles.
• Discussions or proposals which warrant the attention or involvement of the Wikimedia Foundation belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF).
• Software changes which have consensus should be filed at Phabricator.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.

« Archives, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212

RfC: Converting all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure

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

There is a consensus that there should be clarity and consistency regarding general sanctions language, including by using the language of "contentious topics" (CTOP) rather than "discretionary sanctions" (DS). However, as most keep !votes focused on clarity of terminology rather than procedure, no consensus developed to adopt either the particular procedural proposals of this RfC or Barkeep's counter-proposal. Further discussion (and likely a follow-on RfC) is needed to determine: (1) what boilerplate text to adopt for general use in community CTOPs; (2) the proper forum for imposing or modifying community CTOP restrictions; (3) the proper forum for enforcement of community CTOP restrictions; and (4) how to handle potential deviations of community from ArbCom CTOPs. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Notes

---

Should all community discretionary sanctions (DS) be updated to use the new contentious topics procedure? Awesome Aasim Refreshed 01:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC) 05:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Background

In late 2022/early 2023, the discretionary sanctions procedure was overhauled by ArbCom and converted to "contentious topics". With now two different processes for two different kinds of sanctions there is now a lot of fragmentation and inconsistency in how contentious topics should be handled, with even conflicting wording. The main goal of this RfC is to unify the procedure used for all areas where general sanctions are in effect with the one designated by ArbCom, going forward.

As proposed at this time, there will be the some similarities and differences between community and arbitration contentious topics, including:

• The imposition of the standard set of restrictions by consensus of administrators in a community designated topic would be at WP:ANI rather than WP:AE.
• Reconsideration of contentious topic restrictions would be done at WP:AN instead of at WP:AE or WP:ARCA.
• Awareness of a community contentious topic would include but not be limited to being mentioned in the discussion closing summary regarding that contentious topic, which is the closest there is to a "final decision".

And of course, ArbCom would be able to convert community contentious topics to those designated by the committee, after which all the ArbCom venues would have to be used from that point forward, though existing restrictions would remain appealable to WP:AN until renewed at ArbCom.

Survey (community contentious topics)

• Support as proposer. It needs to be clear, especially for new editors, what contentious topics are and what the expectations are for editing topics designated as contentious by either ArbCom or the community. A unified procedure will ensure consistency rather than fragmentation and will make editing the list of contentious topics and their restrictions much easier. (I did do a little bit of work in the Module:Sanctions/sandbox adding in support for ArbCom contentious topics, as it would make it so much easier to use the related sanction templates. I also did work in user space to help envision what a unified contentious topics page might look like.) Awesome Aasim 05:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The current iteration of WP:CTOP is far too tied in to the Arbitration Committee. The available sanctions and procedures are under the jurisdiction of WP:AC/PR can be modified by the Committee by motion at any time, which in this scenario would be binding on decisions made by the community without community consensus. Additionally, many of the General Sanctions areas have a set of restrictions that either exceed what CTOP would allow, or have a more limited subset of them. The community currently has the flexibility to customize sanctions based on the needs of the individual topic area (similar to how Arbcom can impose their own restrictions either alone or on top of the CTOP designation), rather than relying on a "one size fits all" solution. Regarding the possibility of Arbcom choosing to convert community-based CTOP to Arbitration Enforcement, the Committee already has the power to supercede and convert General Sanctions. They've done so before, in cases including WP:ARBCC and WP:ARBTPM. This proposal as written would reduce the community's autonomy and flexibility for the sake of consistency, and I don't see that as a net positive.
  I would, however, support the community adopting a "standard/default" DS language that could be used when customization isn't needed, and reviewing all the existing GS areas to see if they should be abolished or modernized. Updating our own process, templates, info pages etc to completely separate from the Arbcom version would also accomplish this proposal's goal of reducing confusion and would be better than the current system of sometimes linking to CTOP, sometimes linking DS which redirects to CTOP (when they really mean the older version of DS), sometimes a completely different thing with no consistency. Template:Gs/alert is one example of this, where it links to WP:CTOP even when the actual restrictions are unrelated to that designation. Revamping our own procedures would be a better way to reduce fragmentation and confusion than glomming onto what Arbcom chooses to do. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

  I am not exactly seeing how this is a dealbreaker. The CT procedure applies only to designated contentious topics; community consensus or arbitration remedies can always add additional sanctions regardless of WP:CTOP like in WP:ARBPIA. Awesome Aasim 22:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support The phrase "discretionary sanctions" is not clear and so the phrase "contentious topics" was introduced as an improvement. We should have clear and consistent language for contentious matters so that discussions and actions are comprehensible. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The "sanctions regimes" are too complex as it is, and we need to use consistent terminology to reduce that complexity when possible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
• Support. The contentious topics procedure incorporates all of the improvements from the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions procedure. Compared to the discretionary sanctions procedure, the contentious topics procedure is much easier to understand and follow. For example, many editors currently need to be reminded of topic areas under community sanctions every 12 months to be eligible for certain remedies, which led to complaints in the 2021-22 review. Switching from discretionary sanctions to contentious topics would eliminate this requirement: "Editors no longer need to be alerted every 12 months, as they are presumed to remain aware after their first alert." — Newslinger talk 04:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support making the rules clear and consistent to all users. A big part of the problems I've had with DS is that I couldn't tell what was expected of me. No comment on whether this new way of doing things is better or worse than the old one, but it sounds like this isn't that conversation. I 100% support clear and proactive explanations of what Wikipedia does and does not want from its editors. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support making the rules clear and consistent for all editors. Let'srun (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support standardization — as is, the current discrepancy is an unintended relic, not a feature. Community-imposed vs Arbcom-imposed sanctions is a clerical, technical distinction, and I cannot think of any good reason not to streamline the two into the same concept, for the sake of simplicity and understanding. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:39, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support Contentious topics is confusing enough by itself. Two similar but not identical rules is too much. I support any efforts to standardize our sanction systems. Galobtter (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support in the abstract – it might require some case-by-casing, but I think in general, having one set of rules for everyone is much cleaner and easier to understand for those trying to follow the road. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose (despite abstract support) as ANI has generally been the wrong forum for General Sanctions work. In my mind it should be a pump or AN and ANI should be out of the whole system. I also think it's a missed opportunity to not allow community GS to be heard at AE. There is already the community option for AN but this proposal would have created the option of using AE which is the forum many think about anyway. Outside of these details I'm supportive of the effort (given the fact that amongthe few who have expressed an opinion there seems to be overall support). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Would you support having community contentious topics use the ArbCom noticeboards instead? Awesome Aasim 17:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  That seems like it would be confusing using Arbitration Enforcement, since some sanctions would be relevant to Arbcom and some wouldn't. There's a workable idea in here somewhere, and I think unifying all the sanctions noticeboards into one venue is it. There used to be Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard where appeals were heard, before it was retired in 2007 and merged into AN. Having something like a Wikipedia:Sanctions noticeboard that merges General Sanctions enforcement/appeal, requests for new General Sanctions areas that are now at the Village Pump, Arbitration Enforcement/CTOP, and topic ban enforcement into one unified board. The structure of requests there should probably mirror the current AE pretty closely, since that format seems to work better than the free-for-all unstructured discussion at other boards. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  If I recall correctly ArbCom has authorized the use of AE for community general sanctions using DS/CT. Is that still the case or was I wrong the whole time? But that is what I refer to "using ArbCom noticeboards". Awesome Aasim 05:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  When the shift was made to Contentious Topics, the option was made explicitly for the community to use AE if it wished. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  My problem with relying on AE for them is that decisions there are ultimately made only by administrators and rely heavily on ArbCom decisions in turn. ArbCom is the last stop for things that the community has failed to handle, and administrators are the second-to-last stop; but for thing like DS/CTOP designations, which can have a sweeping practical impact on editing across a large section of the wiki, the initial decision-making ought to be made by the community as a whole. --Aquillion (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Ivan (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support - I don't have anything to add beyond what Galobtter said - perfectly expressed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as written but open to most of the content of the proposal, per Barkeep49. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for the exact reasons given by Rosguill. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Wikipedia:Community discretionary sanctions isn't even active, so why would it be merged? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  The proposal is for community-authorized discretionary sanctions to be modified to follow the contentious topics procedure. isaacl (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, so just a really misleading title. Reaffirm oppose though, we should not abandon a community process further in to arbcom. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies for being overly concise in my previous comment: the proposal isn't to abandon community-authorized discretionary sanctions, but to align its procedures with the contentious topics procedures. It would remain under community control, with the changes to procedure that were introduced as part of contentious topics (such as a standard set of restrictions, sanctions no longer being limited to a year, only one template-based notification required for the first notification about contentious topics). isaacl (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is still a very confusing proposal, as it is not very clear about what exactly it wants changed. For example, I can't see why something that has nothing to do with arbcom remedies would need to be recorded at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log (per the WP:CTOP requirements that this proposal appears to to merge in). — xaosflux ^Talk 10:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Further development of the details do still need to be worked out. Community-authorized discretionary sanctions was defined by pointing to the arbitration committee discretionary sanction pages and saying, like that, but with a few differences. When those pages were renamed, that left a hole. In my view, ideally the community would define its preferred base procedure, and then the arbitration committee could point to it and say like that, but with a few differences. Those differences could include locations of logs and appeals (this proposal does explicitly specify a different location for appeals). I appreciate the viewpoint of those who would prefer to have a separation based on the group responsible for the designation of a contentious topic. But maybe that purpose can be served another way, such as a lookup table with appropriate links to the specifics for each variant. From the perspective of users encountering the concept of discretionary sanctions/contentious topics for the first time, I feel it's confusing to be using both the older version and the newer version of the process simultaneously. isaacl (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Which is why I'm leaning that this is a bad proposal. It should have been work-shopped more first. Make X like Y, but not really like Y is messy. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support it will be easier to understand the community-imposed restrictions and could allow the same templates to be used to make the process more unified. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
• Conditional support "Discretionary Sanctions" needs to be deprecated – the phrase is archaic, bureaucratic, and meaningless. However, the noticeboard should not be ANI (per Barkeep), since that place is a mess, whereas sanctions enforcement should be more clear-cut than the usual ANI fare. Toadspike (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support unifying community discretionary sanctions under the contentious topics procedure as it promises to significantly simplify Wikipedia's administrative framework, especially for new users. Adopting one coherent, streamlined process will mitigate the confusion and frustration associated with understanding the diverse existing sanctions systems. FailedMusician (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support as a starting point, although there are a lot of details to hash out and we should probably approach a community CTOP policy page bit-by-bit rather than trying to create it in one go via an RFC. (I am not sure ANI is the best place for this for reasons I'll get to in a moment, it's just better than what we have.) It's important that there be a way to create or modify CTOPs that the entire community can weigh in on and form consensus around; they can drastically affect editing in an entire swath of the wiki. ArbCom's remit is only to resolve problems that the community has failed to solve, and neither they nor administrators are supposed to be creating or modifying policy by fiat, so given how widespread and central CTOPs have become, it makes no sense for the only way to modify CTOPs to be decision-making processes that go only through administrators or arbcom. In fact I would go a step further (though I think doing this cleanly would require cooperation with ArbCom and agreement on their end to modify existing CTOPs in this regard) and say that a clear, unambiguous community consensus on a particular CTOP ought to be able to move it from ArbCom to community control, since it is an indication that the community can now handle it. CTOPs have grown drastically from their initial origins and affect enough of the wiki (in a way that effectively amounts to an intricate set of policies affecting much of our editing) that it no longer makes sense to leave ArbCom as the final decision-maker regarding them, at least in situations where the community can reach clear and unambiguous agreements. I do agree with some comments above that a noticeboard rather than AN / ANI would be a better place to do things related to CTOPs, though - the whole issue is that CTOPs have grown to the point where they are effectively policy, which means that outside of emergencies or situations where the community has failed to handle one, the first line of control over them should be with the community as a whole, not with administrators or ArbCom. --Aquillion (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (community contentious topics)

Cooperation of ArbCom

I wonder if adding in stuff to the WP:CTOP page and similar would require the petition and referendum process. If so, then I guess the merging of templates would have to hold off until a former petition and request for amendment actually passes. It is possible ArbCom will green light the merge if this RfC passes, but I do not know. Awesome Aasim 05:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel the community should work with the arbitration committee to assume responsibility for the contentious topic process, with a pointer to an arbitration-committee specific page where it can customize the process as it feels necessary. This would bring the process under community control, while still allowing the arbitration committee to adapt it to its needs. (There is no change to arbitration policy and so no need to amend it.) isaacl (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't that just be the status quo (or perhaps the old GS/DS) status quo? I think Arbcom is more agile than the community in drafting this kimd language given that passing a motion is easier than an RfC and motions can be adjusted mid vote which is nearly impossible to do with an RfC. Truthfully I think the right place to start is with the standardized language for community GS and perhaps to be more intentional about whether it wants its restrictions to be eligible to be heard at AE, though as The Wordsmith points out there are really good reasons for the community to decide not to do that. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:30, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The process for authorizing discretionary sanctions was documented by the committee, and then later the community started authorizing discretionary sanctions, with its process pointing to the Arbitration Committee pages and saying, "like that". This resulted in the community's process being coupled to decisions made by the arbitration committee. I'm suggesting the reverse: have the community assume responsibility for the contentious topics process, and then the arbitration committee can point to it and say, "like that, but with our specific customizations". I agree the community can decide on its own on what contentious topic process it wants to create. I think it would be good, though, to check with the committee that it is amenable to adopting the community process as a base, and layering any desired differences on top. isaacl (talk) 04:52, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

That also sounds like a good idea: community authorizes the remedies that are appropriate, ArbCom implements them. If ArbCom were to deviate then they would just need to ask the community whether it is an appropriate deviation or not. Awesome Aasim 17:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The committee doesn't have to be constrained by the community as it is already authorized through the arbitration policy to enact remedies of its devising for matters within its scope. It would be simpler for editors to understand, though, if the arbitration committee version of the process was just a set of differences upon a common process. Differences could include things like additional administrator actions that could be performed, or a specific venue for appeals. isaacl (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you know what I mean :)

WP:ARBECR is already used a lot by both the community and by ArbCom, like in WP:RUSUKR and WP:CT/A-I. What I am saying is if ArbCom feels that a specific sanction that there has never been any precedent for is necessary, they should propose it to the community, where there then can be consensus on the exact wording. Placement, enforcement, and appeals are all going to differ though depending on whether the restriction is placed by the community or ArbCom. Awesome Aasim 18:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The community can provide feedback on proposed decisions. I disagree that the committee needs to obtain community consensus on new types of remedies. The arbitration committee is empowered to impose a restriction that community consensus has been unable to reach through prior dispute resolution. If you are referring specifically to the standard set of restrictions that can be imposed for designated contentious topics, I still disagree that community consensus should be mandatory. Typically the committee will provide an opportunity for feedback and the last review of discretionary sanctions illustrates that it strives to lighten the load of enforcing administrators. isaacl (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the extended-confirmed restriction, it was initially devised by the committee on its own. After taking some time to evaluate its effectiveness, the community chose to adopt it as an available restriction. isaacl (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with isaacl that ARBPOL and CONEXEMPT explicitly mean that the committee does not have to, with-in its scope, get community consensus.

However, ECR is a example of why I think the committee is better placed at the moment to be a leader when it comes to contentious topics. The committee having to deal with the absolute hardest conflicts means there is going to be more of an incentive to try something new and ~15 people are going to have an easier time getting to yes than what is required to get community consensus for that newness. It's also revealing to me that ArbCom gets more requests for us to assume community imposed sanctions (examples: COVID, Horn of Africa as two that the committee did assume and Russia-Ukraine War as one that committee has twice been asked to assume and haven't). I would really love it if the community could, as it does in so many other ways, demonstrate broader capabilities when it comes to general sanctions than it has in the past. And to that end getting consensus for some standard wording would be a great place to start. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the arbitration committee is better positioned to try new approaches (consensus doesn't scale up well, so getting consensus amongst 15 people is definitely easier). In a similar vein as you expressed, I feel it would be ideal for the community to agree on a base contentious topics process, which the committee could extend in new ways that the community could later choose to incorporate back into the base process. isaacl (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• I mentioned this in a big reply below already, but I feel one possible solution to this is to allow the community to take control of ArbCom community sanctions once they're stable (through a clear consensus of editors somewhere), transferring them to community CTOPs. This allows ArbCom to act swiftly and impose CTOPs in situations where the community would inevitably be slow-to-act, and simplifies community decision making because they can just take solutions ArbCom has created and tweak them slightly if necessary; but it avoids the situation we have now where ArbCom functionally takes control of moderation over entire topic areas indefinitely, which IMHO is something we want to avoid. --Aquillion (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• I do agree that it's worth considering ways to transfer more control over the CTOP process to the community; it affects so much of the wiki now, and is so forceful, that it has effectively turned into policy-by-fiat, which ArbCom wasn't supposed to do. But I'm not sure its feasible to simply transfer the entire thing to the community at once. What I would suggest (and suggested above) is the following. First, create a community CTOP page that is totally separate from ArbCom's (aside from maybe mentioning it for historical reasons), and encourage ArbCom to use that as the basis for its CTOPs, in the same way most of the other things ArbCom does relies on community-created policy. Second, establish that a clear and unambiguous consensus among a sizable number of uninvolved editors can transfer an ArbCom CTOP to community control and place it under the community CTOP rules. (This would probably require that ArbCom agree to modify existing CTOPs to add a line about how the community can take control of it in that manner.) The principle here is that ArbCom is only supposed to be handling things that the community can't; declaring that governance of an entire topic area is a problem that the community has failed to handle, indefinitely, seems like it's too much - it's a lot bigger than ArbCom handling just one person's ban! But it is true that sometimes things break down and require ArbCom intervention on a large scale or we wouldn't have CTOPs in the first place. Creating an "escape hatch" for once things settle down that allows things to transfer back to community control would leave ArbCom with the tools it needs for emergency situations that the community has failed to handle, while allowing for a way to smoothly return to community control once ArbCom's solutions have settled things and a consensus has built around that (avoiding the situation we have now where entire topic areas are under ArbCom control indefinitely.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:57, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  That seems to match my suggestion: make the process a community-defined one, and work with the arbitration committee to define its process as an add-on to the community-defined process. Transferring all of the arbitration committee-designated contentious topics at once to community-designated ones isn't being proposed, and I agree it wouldn't be a desirable approach. isaacl (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @Aquillion: Regarding transferring things from ArbCom control to community control. There defacto already is a procedure for this - a request for amendment to the relevant case/motion that authorised the CTOP designation. The request would need to unambiguously state that the intent was to transfer all or part of the topic from ArbCom control to community control to avoid it being confused for a request to remove the designation entirely but other than that wouldn't need to be anything special, although if I were an arbitrator reviewing such a request I'd want to see three things:

  1. Community consensus that such a transfer was desirable
  2. Community consensus that the community does feel able to handle enforcement of it (and no evidence that it can't)
  3. Evidence that CTOP is still required (because it it isn't then it would be preferable to just remove the designation)

  Yes, this does mean that it would be ArbCom giving control to the community rather than the community taking control from ArbCom, but we elect arbitrators to listen to the community desires and not act unreasonably in matters like this. I also see it as a protection against a vocal minority that doesn't have the consensus it claims to. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

In WP:DS2022, one of the changes made was to allow the community to make use of AE. I think we should do so. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I definitely think we should split contentious topics from WP:AELOG. A separate contentious topics log would make restrictions much easier to follow - and, if the restriction is rescinded or converted from community to ArbCom or the other way around - it can be logged as well. Awesome Aasim 21:21, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Request revision to initial question

The statement all community general sanctions (DS) in the initial question is misleading. "General sanctions" is not synonymous with community authorization for discretionary sanctions. I think the intent should be clarified that the proposal only affects discretionary sanctions authorized by the community, and not all general sanctions. isaacl (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Isaacl Done. Awesome Aasim 20:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Tag Refreshed

I refreshed the RfC tag because there is not enough input to gauge consensus. Could this be because this is uncontroversial or what? Awesome Aasim 19:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Could well be :) Selfstudier (talk) 10:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's because many editors simply don't know what's going on. I didn't know this discussion was taking place. I'm still not sure what the change in policy is, only that, if it has been changed, the system should be clear about it. Are we dissolving Discretionary Sanctions? Is AE not going to be a thing any more? Is it merging with ANI? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24 The question is really just about making community sanctions use the new contentious topics procedure. Awesome Aasim 23:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay. What is the new CT procedure? Do you know how it's different? I just read through one of the links that Newslinger provided above, and I'm having trouble picking out differences. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

For full details, see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. It's basically a renamed version of discretionary sanctions, with changes made based on community feedback received during the 2021–22 review of discretionary sanctions. Some highlights: there is a standard set of restrictions that a single administrator can impose on their own discretion. Restrictions outside of these can be imposed by a consensus discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Sanctions are no longer limited to one year, but after a year, sanctions that were imposed by a single adminstrator no longer have to be discussed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard to be modified. Users no longer have to be made aware of each specific topic area. They only have to be notified once using a specific template about the contentious topic system. Striking out inaccurate description. isaacl (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Users no longer have to be made aware of each specific topic area. They only have to be notified once using a specific template about the contentious topic system. That would contradict the CTOP regime. Even among the Arbcom sanctions, editors still have to be notified about topic areas individually. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

My apologies; I misspoke. A specific template only has to be used for the first notification about the contentious topic system in general. Subsequently, any form of notification can be used to inform a given user about specific contentious topics. Previously, a specific template had to be used for each affected topic area. isaacl (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, not all community sanctions, but community-authorized discretionary sanctions. isaacl (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Follow Up Discussion

Firstly, does anyone want to help update all the community "discretionary sanctions" to community "contentious topics" in the relevant terminology? And secondly, what parts of the CT procedure should the community adopt and which ones should the community not? I think community should adopt a contentious topics policy (and the existing WP:CT could be moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Contentious topics). It should detail all of the restrictions that may be issued under a CT designation, and when nonstandard restrictions may be used, etc.

I think it would be a good idea to merge Template:Gs/alert with Template:Ct/alert/first (as well as similar GS templates with CT templates) and to have one module for handling both community and arbitration contentious topics. Awesome Aasim 00:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Create an alias for the Template namespace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

--Task created Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I am proposing that tp: be added as an alias to the Template: namespace per this discussion.

Note: Though previous aliases were already listed on perennial proposals, it proposed t:, which would have conflicted with some article titles, or be confused with the Talk: namespace. Tp:, on the other hand, wouldn't, and would make it way quicker to look up a template in the search bar.

Edit (during rfc): tp: was not fully supported due to it being confused with "Talk Page", however other options were proposed, like hard coding {{ being replaced by Template: in the search bar, or other aliases like tmp:. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose "Template" is not a long word, and nobody abbreviates it as "tp" these days. This seems pointless. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  I just thought it'd make it consistent with wp: for Wikipedia:, which is 10 characters, while Template: is 9 characters. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Nobody abbreviates it as "tp" these days. Even if that is true it is not a reason for us not to do so. Wikipedia is big enough to be making fashions rather than following them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well said. — Frostly (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support I'd find it useful. It's less effort to type "tp:infobox person" in the search box than "template:infobox person" (which is how I usually navigate to wp: and template: pages). Schazjmd (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support per Schazjmd. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support I'd absolutely love this. I've often wondered if there was some technical problem that was preventing us doing this. Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Pretty nice QOL change. Per Schazjmd. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• I don't think it's a good idea to create an alias (and implicitly creating more English Wikipedia jargon) just to improve the search function. We should instead improve the search capability directly. isaacl (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, but you don't want a casual reader to be confused as to why they ended up on a template page Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  It would be a lot easier for the casual user to stumble upon a namespace alias, which could happen anywhere they enter an URL that might trigger a browser to launch, than for them to deliberately select the search box and type there. Furthermore, if this isn't intended to be used by a broad audience, then a more targeted solution would be better. Users wanting this functionality can make use of the script to which you were pointed in the previous thread, or they can configure their OS to provide an appropriate macro expansion to shorten the number of keystrokes they use. isaacl (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  For reference, the script seems to be User:Ahecht/Scripts/TemplateSearch. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• "tp" seems very easily misconstrued as "Talk Page" at a glance. CMD (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Good point. Sdkb ^talk 18:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support I've been wanting this. It really is irksome to type out "Template:" I since learned today there are scripts, and of course {{tld}} for talk pages, but it would be much cleaner and simpler to have a standard abbrev. and this is technically easy to implement. TP: or T: it doesn't matter they both are fine. I prefer T: -- GreenC 18:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Unless I'm missing something, the TP: prefix was proposed in 2015, in a discussion which was closed as no consensus - Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 127#Prefix suggestion: TP: for Template:. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 19:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose For the reasons in WP:PEREN#Create shortcut namespace aliases for various namespaces. In particular, the Template namespace is generally not linked often enough that saving the typing of 6 characters is likely to be at all worthwhile and there's nothing available to use for the corresponding talk pages. Anomie⚔ 20:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • there's nothing available to use for the corresponding talk pages See Nirvana fallacy. — Frostly (talk) 06:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
• The template for linking a template is called {{tl}}. Shouldn't we have some consistency between this and the short-cut? Or is "tl" already used? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Phil Bridger tl is ISO639 for tagalog. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  {{tl}} is short for {{template link}}, so the el doesn't have anything to do with templates qua templates. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support – While there are helpful template shortcuts, like {{t}} and its siblings, that can be used in discussions, and a script that can be used in the on-wiki searchbox to convert {{ to Template:, a namespace shortcut (tp:) would help in edit summaries and customised browser search boxes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Adding layers of obfuscation is not helpful. If I want to refer to {{convert}}, writing Template:Convert is easy and helpful to someone reading my comment. Writing Tp:Convert is unnecessary jargon that saves under a second of typing at the cost of head-scratching for readers. tp would be "talk page" for many. Johnuniq (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose As someone who has next to no involvement with template editing, I immediately think of 'talk page' when I see 'tp'. It would confuse many people who edit outside of the technical areas of Wikipedia. (Summoned by bot) JML1148 ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Rename the template mainspace from "Template:" to "Plantilla:" and use "Pl:" as a shortcut CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  That would be quite a big change, but I'm not against it lol Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  But this is in español ROTFL -- ZandDev 13:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah there's no way we'll get consensus on that one Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yea, no. Also even on eswiki that uses that namespace name this couldn't happen as Pl is ISO639 for Polish. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

• Soft Oppose I'd support hard-coding {{→Template: into the search box's autocomplete natively rather than using my script as a hack, but I agree that the widespread use of links like TP:Example are an unnecessary layer of obfuscation/jargon. With the WP prefix, at least the shortcut links are mostly self explanatory, but it wouldn't be obvious to a newcomer what, for example, tp:birds is, or why it's not an article. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 18:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Ahecht Yes, hard-coding that directly could be a great alternative. I just think that we need to find a solution for this, and maybe tp: wasn't the best as others have pointed out. I'll continue gathering some ideas and then conduct a sub-RfC to see what option would be best, as long as the consensus doesn't seem to be oppose. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• neutral i could go either way. I like the hard coding option of having 'template' be dropdown option in the menu. Slacker13 (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support – I don't think that adding the t: will add an another level of obfuscation. The current method of making interwiki link is already obscure and complicated, specially for newbies, instead a simple alias to the template namespace will be easy and handy in researches. -- ZandDev 13:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  Note that I suggested tp: though, not t: as it was rejected previously: does that work for you? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Cocobb8: I'm in favor to the proposal of create an alias for the template namespace, but I believe that I, when I would see one of these link, would not associate tp: directly with templates, but with talk pages. -- ZandDev 16:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I do work with templates but I feel that this is not an intuitive shortcut and could easily be confused with "talk page". (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support , I had typed TP: prefix in the past thinking that I would get the template page without success. This would be useful in different scenarios (just like the WP: prefix). And its use is optional, so if someone doesn't like it, they can go with the full Template: as ever. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary, and just as with T=Talk, TP=Talk Page. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• Neutral Agree with the principle, would prefer access to a shortened version; but also agree that the proposal is too close to talk page. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
• I think supporting {{ in the search bar would be sufficient to support the use case of issue. But beside that, I agree with oppose comments above. Izno (talk) 02:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Not intuitive and I'm not convinced this solves a genuine problem -Fastily 21:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
• Strong support because I have typed "Twmplate" in the search bar too many goddamn times. Mach61 21:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support: I have to do everything on mobile, and am looking up templates all the time. This would make that a significantly less laborious and typo-prone experience. But I'd be happy with some other 2- or 3-letter shortcut if TP: is a problem. No more than 3 letters, though. Also I keep typing TP:, TMP: or TPL: without thinking, expecting them to work. But I only want it for search purposes. I'd be opposed to its use as jargon for referring to templates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musiconeologist (talk • contribs) 01:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  To help you out immediately, you can use the text expansion feature or apps on your phone to expand an abbreviated string to a longer one. isaacl (talk) 01:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

  Well yes, this is rather basic and I've already got a vast number of shortcuts set up. The one I'd naturally use for templates translates tem into {{|}}. There are two points, though: (i) it's counterintuitive and annoying that the whole word is needed, in contrast to wp: etc.; and (ii) beyond three characters, it stops really being a shortcut because it's only a bit shorter. Part of the annoyance is in having to remember that there isn't a 2-letter prefix to use. Musiconeologist (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Alias {{ (if technically possible): no ambiguity and concise. Typing {{Rfc should take you to Template:Rfc and so should {{Rfc}}. I'm neutral on aliasing TP as the ambiguity may be balanced out by utility. I like T better despite previous community rejection. — Bilorv (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  It is technically possible for {{ to be implemented, and there already is code for it if you want to try it out. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 22:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support any shortcut except just T. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support saves me a few characters/seconds when accessing templates through the search bar, might even make up for the seconds wasted to write this comment. Tl, tmp or tpl works for me if people object to tp. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support, this is an excellent idea. I type "Template:" in the search box a lot and it seems many other users do as well, so it makes sense to add a prefix. Preferably it wouldn't be "TP" if a good amount of people have issues with that; I don't care about what ends up being chosen as it remains relatively short (2 or 3 letters). ― novov (t c) 02:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support. Aliasing {{ is less preferable to me because a shortcut would also allow shortening template links in edit summaries, where {{tl}} is unavailable. The particular shortcut used doesn't matter to me, just that I won't have to type "Template:" every time. Nickps (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Think about the possibility of [[{{example}}]] Aaron Liu (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  No. Why should we introduce a way to link to pages that only works in edit summaries and nowhere else? (Note that using it elsewhere will transclude example instead.) TMP:example on the other hand, will work in Search, in talk pages and in edit summaries and the fact that it's a unified syntax makes it easier for non power users to learn. I'm not opposed to introducing {{ for Search (alongside a regular shortcut) as long as we take measures to make sure that people don't end up on the wrong page. That is, if e.g. {{foo}} exists we should add a {{technical reasons}} hatnote to Template:foo/doc. Nickps (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Nickps It's already impossible to start a title with a bracket, see [1] Mach61 12:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm aware. That doesn't mean there aren't topics whose WP:COMMONNAMEs start with {{. Nickps (talk) 12:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. I've been at this for ten years and still hate calling up a template doc because it requires so damn much typing. The more typing, the more opportunity for typos that have to be corrected (and I'm good at typos). No objection to something other than TP, such as TM, although no doubt someone would say that could be confused with something else. The longer it gets (e.g. TMP), the less benefit. Something like this doesn't need to be descriptive, just easy to remember. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Doc pages don't require much more typing - and if four characters is too many, there is always the "view" link top right of the green doc box that is displayed on the main template page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm talking about calling up template doc when I don't have a link to click, such as {{infobox person}} (I'm looking to read the doc, not edit it, so the transclusion on the "main template page" is all I need). So I'm typing into the search box, and typing nine characters before I even get to the template name. I would dislike three characters (tm:) one-third (3⁄9) as much. My question is: Why NOT do this? Where's the significant downside? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think Redrose thought that you meant actually manually going to the /doc subpage. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, I know. Hence my attempt at clarification. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Mandruss: I highly recommend User:Ahecht/Scripts/TemplateSearch. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I prefer solutions that benefit everybody, not just those who are aware of a script and choose to use it. I'm not here just for myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Don't get why this hasn't been done already. We have wp: because typing "wikipedia:consensus" is tedious. And I can't spell template—I misspell it tempalte all the time—so an alias would be very nice. Anything four characters or shorter would be fine by me; I especially like the {{ idea. And to those who think that creating an alias will cause confusion—really? Is wp:sectionlink any more confusing than tm:sectionlink or something similar? You'll be lost for all of two seconds, if that. Cessaune [talk] 03:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  omg I thought I had something really wrong with my fingers for always spelling tempalte Aaron Liu (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Support Been meaning to propose this for a while! Any concerns about confusion can be fixed by an experienced editor spending one minute noticing the new system. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Template namespace alias: Second survey

It seems to me we might have wide enough support for this to pass as a general concept. But I think a closer would be unable to decide on the specific alias to use, so we'd be looking at another RfC to decide that (ugh). Therefore a separate survey is in order. Eliminating tp:, I see at least tentative support for t:, tl:, tm:, tmp:, and tpl: (am I missing any?). I don't think this needs ranked voting—the specific choice isn't that critical—so it would be great if editors could just specify their one favorite. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Redacted 05:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

This section is not for opposition to the general concept; see my reply to Anomie's Oppose, below. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Notifications. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Notification of all participants to date, regardless of the nature of participation; you commented, you get notified. @Aaron Liu, Ahecht, Alexcalamaro, Anomie, ARandomName123, A smart kitten, Bilorv, Buidhe, CactiStaccingCrane, Chipmunkdavis, Cocobb8, Cremastra, Draken Bowser, Fastily, Frostly, Goldsztajn, GreenC, Isaacl, Izno, Jlwoodwa, JML1148, Johnuniq, Mach61, Michael Bednarek, Mir Novov, Musiconeologist, Nickps, Phil Bridger, Pppery, Redrose64, Schazjmd, Slacker13, Usedtobecool, Wjemather, Xaosflux, and ZandDev: ―Mandruss ☎ 23:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• tm: t: ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC) Redacted 04:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• t: and tm: are no good because they deprive mainspace articles like t:kort of the title they deserve. tl is already in use to refer to the Tagalog Wikipedia. Fine with the others. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC) (edited * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC))

  I struck tl:, it is not valid as it is an ISO language code. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  Woops. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  I find the "title they deserve" argument uncompelling in the greater scheme. Those wacky norsk and a few others might have to take one for the team. By eliminating t and tm, you're effectively forcing a three-character alias (unless we want to back up and introduce something like te at this late date, which would probably meet with its own opposition anyway). Just for fun, how about an example of a tm-"killer"? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Anomie provided one below. And te is already used for the Telugu Wikipedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:28, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Told ya. Hell, while you might be able to produce a better example, I wonder if t:kort would survive AFD. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  T:kort seems to be the only one for t:, other than some redirects which would work just as well from template namespace. But I think it would survive AfD - why would it be any less notable than anything else in Category:Fare collection systems, keeping in mind WP:Systemic bias and that sources are probably in Norwegian? Since I don't see a compelling reason for this proposal at all you aren't going to be able to convince me to cause a clear harm in the name of a dubious benefit. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Just don't want anybody getting the impression that t and tm are now off the table like tl. The fact that they aren't stricken in the intro should be enough, but ya never know... ―Mandruss ☎ 03:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  On t:kort specifically, which appears to be the only article that starts with T:, I don't think it actually should have that title per MOS:TM. The use of a colon isn't standard Norwegian orthography and the majority of third-party sources appear to call it "T-kort". – Joe (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  And I see you've done that move. Well damn, now I'm tempted to change my vote from tm to t. But then I'd have to re-ping everybody; not sure it's worth it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  There are still some links to the redirect at T:kort and quite a few others. OTOH, I don't understand the objections based ISO language codes. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's established convention that links prefixed with a language code go to that language's edition. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Only if they exist, like tl:, but not for tpl:, tmp:, tem:. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  If a Wikipedia is created for a language, the ISO 639 code will be used in its URL and for its wikilinks (like how de: or es: link to German or Spanish Wikipedias, or how they can link back to us with en:). A namespace alias would conflict with that, preventing linking to that Wikipedia, so such aliases are often preemptively avoided. Anomie⚔ 13:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Most of those other redirects are cross-mainspace redirects to templates, i.e. using "T:" as a pseudo-namespace. Obviously they wouldn't be affected by this proposal. The exceptions I can see are:

  • T:A → Tribes: Ascend
  • T:DS → Thief: Deadly Shadows
  • T:MP → Talk:Main Page
  • T:SCC, T:TSCC, T: SCC → Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles
  • T:SCC Episodes → List of Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episodes
  • T: New York Times Style Magazine, T: The New York Times Style Magazine → T (magazine)

  – Joe (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Of those, Template:A is salted so could be recreated as a redirect to Tribes: Ascend, Template:DS is a pointer to a defunct template so could probably be hijacked as a redirect to Thief: Deadly Shadows, Template:SCC is an unused redirect to Template:Supreme Court of Canada sidebar that could easily be retargeted to Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and Template:MP, Template:TSCC, Template:SCC Episodes, Template:New York Times Style Magazine, and Template:Kort are all red. Still opposed to t: since it would cause avoidable confusion, but less strongly so than before. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  There's a few more than those, in particular T:APRM→Turbo: A Power Rangers Movie; T:OTD→WP:Selected anniversaries; and T:DYKT, T:TDYK, T:TDYKA, and T:tdyk pointing at Template talk: titles. —Cryptic 12:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Note that Template:OTD points to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/Date. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  And Template:DYKT points to a different place than T:DYKT and both are in use. The others are fine: Template:ARPM, Template:TDYK, Template:TDYKA, and Template:tdyk are all red. Template:OTD vs. T:OTD difference seems to be a historical accident not a deliberate difference. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'd be fine with any of the choices. Schazjmd (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Schazjmd: Yeah, this is the kind of "vote" that doesn't get us any closer to consensus. You might as well have saved yourself the trouble. Maybe you could just close your eyes and pick one? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

• tm: Cremastra (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• T is fine just as we use "h" for help space all over.Moxy🍁 23:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• tm: prefer this than single letter "t" which still retains a "talk" ambiguity. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• tm: because T: is already used, it's shorter than tpl:, and tmp: is misleading/confusing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Since you pinged me, I still oppose the whole idea. I note that "t" could be confused with "talk", as was already noted, "tpl" is the ISO 639 code for Tlacoapa, and "tmp" is a deprecated (but apparently not unassigned) ISO 639 code for Tai Mène. Also of note are articles T:kort and TM:103 Hustlerz Ambition that would be affected by certain of the proposals here (plus a few other redirects starting with "T:", such as T: New York Times Style Magazine). Anomie⚔ 00:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  I pinged you because pinging everybody was a whole lot easier than trying to decide who should be pinged for this section. I might decide wrong and piss somebody off. This section is not for opposition to the general concept; that's the other one. If the general concept doesn't pass, this section will prove a waste of time, but it's still worthwhile. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• tm or t8 are fine. The "8" might seem radical, but it's actually a typical method for shortening long words, such as l18n or k8s - eight being a familiar number for this purpose. No matter the choice, there will likely be edge case overlaps. That shouldn't stop it though. There are likely edge cases for WP, File, and whatever else. -- GreenC 01:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  8 is just outside the normal typing zone on a normal keyboard and requires extra clicks to get to on a phone keyboard. I oppose it. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  8 is just outside the normal typing zone on a normal keyboard - I don't know, but really? -- GreenC 01:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• I also support tm. Ideally I'd support tp: the most, which also has no usages, and establishing this convention would prevent confusion, but it seems this has been struck down already. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also support t: per novov. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• tm or tp for me. tl would also be OK, and would match the existing {{tl}} template. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, that seems to have ended up in the wrong place. If anyone feels like moving it properly into the list of replies, please do. I'm hampered by the size of the page. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Protip: Use c:commons:Convenient Discussions. It formats bullet-point replies correctly. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. We ended up both moving it at the same time! I got an edit conflict, then discovered it was now in the right place anyway. I now know to add a new bullet point, not a new reply via the reply link. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  tl is off the table; that's why there's a line through it. See this edit. tp was eliminated because of strong opposition to something that looks like "talk page". It helps to read before posting. We'll assume you like tm, then. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  (and as said above tl is off the table because it already refers to the tagalog wikipedia) Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  I did, then I read considerably more (the whole discussion). It's late at night, I was battling to navigate the page in a tiny window, and I didn't remember that specific detail among all the others. Anyway, tp is my first choice. Musiconeologist (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Anarchist. ;) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, tm is fine. And my irritability suggests I need sleep, (I find the opposition to tp surprising though. I expect the alias to be a contraction of one word.) Musiconeologist (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  tm is a contraction of template. It just uses the first and second consonants instead of the first and third. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. Same as tp. I wasn't saying any different. I just meant that I'm surprised people would intuitively interpret tp as talk page rather than template when using acronyms would obviously be a different model. But they do, and that's fine. Musiconeologist (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Get some sleep. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• TM: , as my prefered TP: has been discarded per above. Alexcalamaro (talk) 01:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• Tem. Still saves a whole plate. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Note "tem" is the ISO 639 code for Temne. Anomie⚔ 11:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's so obscure!! Hyperbolick (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not to the two million people that speak Temne. – Joe (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe: Aside that being .00025% of the world, what number of Temne speakers would even know that that’s its abbreviation? Hyperbolick (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't know, I don't speak Temne. But if/when we have a Temne Wikipedia, it'll be how we link to it. – Joe (talk) 06:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose t, not sold on the concept as a whole but the others don't seem to hold the potential confusion the initial proposal did. CMD (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• {{ is my first choice and t is my second choice (and I don't understand why I have to say it twice). — Bilorv (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because to achieve something from this proposal it is necessary to converge to a few and ideally to a single prefix. -- ZandDev 11:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if a non-alphanumeric namespace alias is possible, but if it is, I suspect {{: would pose a problem for many existing tools and scripts that parse wikitext, including syntax highlighting tools. isaacl (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the {{ option does not include a : and would require additional programming. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  My apologies for being overly concise. I included the : to emphasize that the proposal is for a namespace alias, and not to suggest that there would be a colon in the namespace alias. Yes, the point of my comment was that not only might there be a need for changes to MediaWiki software, but to many existing tools and scripts, including syntax highlighting tools. isaacl (talk) 17:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  The {{ option is not supposed to be a namespace alias that would still require the colon. It's proposed to be what seems to be a searchbar alias plus maybe an edit summary alias. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it's not necessary to explain proposals that I'm already aware of (as per my previous comments). If someone isn't proposing a namespace alias, then they shouldn't list it as their preferred option in this section. isaacl (talk) 04:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  It also wouldn't really help on mobile, at least with SwiftKey, since accessing the braces entails either a long keypress for each one or switching to symbol layout. Either way it's probably easier to type the whole word than use the alias. Musiconeologist (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose anything and everything that conflicts with an article, including "T:" and "TM:", I also oppose "tp" as it is more likely to refer to "talk page" than "TemPlate". Neutral on other suggestions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• tpl:Slacker13 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Immediately comprehensible, easy to remember Musiconeologist (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• tm: for it does not conflict with talk pages in any way, and is the most logical one to me. Would also be fine with tmp: and tpl:. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
• First choices: t, tp, tm
  Second choice: Aliasing {{
  Last choices: Anything with a number or 3+ letters
  Honestly, I would suggest whoever closes this just narrowes down the 2-3 most viable options, selects one randomly, and comes up with a post-hoc justification. This isn't worth spending a lot of time on Mach61 17:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  tm is also a language code. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  I see no problems, tm: isn't a valid interlanguage link. Mach61 17:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure what I was talking about. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  I guess that could work, but to me it looks like tm: is the one gathering the most support so far. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• T: is the straightforward and shortest prefix: it does its job better. The main problem is that it could be confused with talk, but I noticed that all here said that 'tp' seems to refer to 'talk page', so why not use it for talk pages? People will adapt to the chosen solution and have to remember it. Also tm is not direct (but for me acceptable). ZandDev 18:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  It's too much work to have everyone adapt to a new thing. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic about namespace aliases for other things. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that all here said that 'tp' seems to refer to 'talk page', so why not use it for talk pages? You're proposing a tp: alias for talk:? Aren't you a bit off topic? Besides, it would save only two characters, not 5–7: a truly negligible improvement. Besides, there are at least two kinds of talk pages, article and user. That's if you exclude other talk spaces, such as this one. If any additional aliases might make sense, they would be atp: for talk: and utp: for user talk:—the words "talk page" can be ambiguous in some contexts, so I try to use those acronyms wherever such ambiguity might exist. Apologies for extending the off-topic; sometimes I can't help myself! ―Mandruss ☎ 05:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC) I agree with you, it isn't worth it to add tp: as an alias to talk:, the latter being already pretty short. However, for whatever ends up being chosen for template:, might it work to add an extra t in that alias for the template talk: namespace? Say, if tm: is the one chose, then tmt: could alias template talk:. Also, a shorter alias for user talk: would be ut:. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Note "tmt" is the ISO 639 code for Tasmate. Anomie⚔ 13:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: people realize that t: is the existing psudeo-namespace for templates, as seen at T:CN and T:DYK? That doesn't mean you HAVE to support it, but it makes the arguments that it would be "confusing" stange, as it is already in use. Mach61 12:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  There's also T:MP, and there's no evidence that people not already in the know aren't confused by those. Plus it could turn out to be more confusing once people can use it for every template rather than only the handful of pseudo-namespace redirects that have been allowed. Anomie⚔ 13:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Let me see if I understand this. If the colon were removed from the title at TM:103 Hustlerz Ambition (a vanishingly insignificant cost to the project, although some Jeezy fans would disagree), that would create a redirect with the colon that wouldn't work because of a tm: namespace alias? Then we should consider manually changing all existing links to that article (104 entries in that list, although I don't know how many would have to change) and deleting the unusable redirect. Then all we'd have to worry about is the possibility that some obscure Tamboori Wikipedia (e.g.), Tamboori being spoken by 112 people on a remote island in the South Pacific, will be created in the future and somebody at en-wiki will want to link to it. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Mandruss actually, we could just create a template page and redirect that (see Help:A Day in the Life for an analogous case). The issue is when there is already an existing template with the same name as a mainspace page after the prefix. Mach61 14:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hmmm. Well there's something to be said for knowing I don't understand something, since I'll talk less. I don't know how much of an obstacle we're talking about. I do believe that we should be prepared to make some sacrifice to make this work. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's super easy to create an alias template, provided that the alias doesn't conflict with article titles/redirects already. Which is the main issue. Cessaune [talk] 15:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also, it seems that Jeezy is a thoughtful Wikipedian, as he chose an appropriate spelling for his 2019 album title : TM104: The Legend of the Snowman, just to avoid conflict :-) Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Tm or Tl Both are close to the colon-key, which is always practical. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Draken Bowser: tl is off the table, hence the strikethrough in the intro to this section. See previous discussion in this section. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• After further consideration, I would probably go for t: or tmp:/tpl:. Any collision with article space can be solved by redirects, similar to Portal:No Escape, given the number of offenders is relatively small. TM: is a non-starter in my opinion since many keyboards auto-correct it to a U+2122 ™ TRADE MARK SIGN, and the point of a shortcut is to avoid difficulty. ― novov (t c) 02:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Very valid point. However, I've not seen that happen inside search boxes or on Wikipedia as far as I can remember, which are basically the only scenarios in which anyone would be typing template: anyway. Cessaune [talk] 04:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately it does happen for me; afaik it's a default text replacement on macOS. I'd disable it, but I find the ability legitimately useful in other circumstances. ― novov (t c) 07:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

• First choice Tm, second choice T: — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Browser config

I do not know about the rest, but on chrome, using the search engine shortcut feature worked perfectly.

1. Go to chrome://settings/searchEngines
2. Click "Add" that's next to "Site search"
3. Fill out: Name = [Anything], Shortcut = [I picked "tt"] , URL with %s in place of query = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:%s

That's it. After that, just type out your shortcut, followed by title, separated by a space/tab, on the address bar and hit enter. Everyone can pick whatever shortcut they like, for all namespaces and even page prefixes of their choice. You can add one for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/%s to go to RFAs by just typing out usernames, for example. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

That's good for an alternative in the meantime! But tp: would make it easier regardless of the platform people use to contribute. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 11:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You can also use User:Ahecht/Scripts/TemplateSearch to automatically replace TP: and {{ in the Wikipedia search box with Template:. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Suicide hotlines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

For the proposal see User:TheSpacebook/lifeline

Firstly, is this the correct place to put this? Also, I can’t find this proposal on Perennial proposals. I have concerns about the Suicide methods article. I believe it to be a clear violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. Failing that, the article is just a WP:BADIDEA. The consensus is currently for the page to stay, so for now, possibly the suicide crisis line for the reader could be displayed at the top of the page subtly embedded into the article.

But for now, I’ve spun this up in 15 minutes and sourced the numbers from List of suicide crisis lines. This might have to be expanded, as some lines have opening and closing times, so it can be expanded to display just the emergency telephone number when the number is closed. It relies on one thing though, IP address lookup service ‘ipapi’. There are probably better in-house Wikipedia databases that can do this, for better reliability. But essentially it curls the IP address and returns the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2.

The script is ultra-simplistic as I don't know what the specific technicalities of Wikipedia are, so it's a basic HTML script. If a more advanced tool would be better, point me towards the Wikipedia dev docs for the technical specifications. Also, I can build other tools for Wikipedia by piggybacking off the pre-existing ones.

I imagine that some people who have attempted suicide will probably have the Suicide methods article in their internet history. It should work with HTML, so the quickest solution is to insert the script only on the Suicide methods page. Sort of like an WP:IAR. It will also need to be styled so it looks better on the page.

All the phone numbers should be checked for accuracy, but the raw basic script for HTML can be found here: User:TheSpacebook/Suicide crisis line script. And the full HTML page, if it needs testing, can be found here: User:TheSpacebook/Suicide crisis line script HTML page. Just copy and paste it into a text editor, save it with the extension ".html", and then open it in a web browser. EDIT: I’ve reworked my proposal to be more subtle, it can be found here User:TheSpacebook/lifeline. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Technical issues aside, this feels a lot like WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS to me. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

For background, see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161 § Proposal to add suicidal disclaimer at Suicide and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 192 § Suicides. isaacl (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying me with those. However, my proposal is completely different. I’m not arguing for the article to be censored, nor the article to have a disclaimer (or "trigger warning"). I’m proposing that the relevant suicide crisis line to be in the article. This already happens on a different article, Suicide prevention, but it only displays the USA number. Possibly another example of the Western, specifically American, WP:BIAS on Wikipedia? Plus, the numbers already exist on List of suicide crisis lines, I think it would be a good idea to put the specific phone number in the appropriate place. TheSpacebook (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Both discussion threads discussed putting a link to a hotline in articles, targeted to the reader's geographical area. isaacl (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Both of those discussions began to get sidetracked to disclaimers or censorship, and were concluded based on those two. I hope this discussion focuses only on the suicide crisis number. Also the Suicide prevention article has a number, and I said in my other comment how this could be American WP:BIAS on Wikipedia. Something like that, but it changes for the country makes reasonable sense to me. TheSpacebook (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The point of providing background is so the relevant discussion points can be reviewed and taken into consideration, to facilitate moving forward from the previous discussions. Both discussions cover relevant issues. isaacl (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Both of them are arguing for WP:DISCLAIMERS. I have since modified my proposal, to make it clear that I’m not proposing a disclaimer. The text already reads that to prevent suicide they should call a crisis number, so it seems more precise to have the exact number. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

For instance, the second discussion has a post from a WMF staff member on the database it maintains, and how it would be willing to provide support for any community initiative. I feel this is useful background for your proposal. isaacl (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you again for sending me that, it was an interesting discussion. But it sways into WP:DISCLAIMERS which is not what I’m proposing. The script I made is a basic example, as I don’t have access to any of the backend Wikipedia/WMF tools. Linking it to a backend database that WMF maintains would be better. If the number changes, it only needs to be edited once to reflect immediately. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Using an external service is a huge "no" from a privacy perspective. If we were to do this, we'd take up the WMF's offer to to it in-house from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 192#Suicides. But what has changed since that discussion didn't result in acceptance? Anomie⚔ 01:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

All the script needs run is the ISO 2-letter country code. This can easily be supplied in-house at Wikipedia/WMF. I just used an external to show a working example of the script, as I don’t have access to any of the Wikipedia backend tools that can be used instead. In my initial post, I said there are probably better in-house Wikipedia databases that can do this. I’m not suggesting an external service is actually used. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The user's assumed country is available using Geo.country in javascript. the wub "?!" 08:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Perfect. What format does that return? Would it be Geo.country_code, as the 2 letter ISO country code, or something else? Now I can take away the fetch part:

const response = await
fetch('ipapi.co/country_code');
const country = await response.text();

and have then replace this part:

const country = await fetchCountry();

with the following:

const country = Geo.country

Anyone is welcome to make amendments to User:TheSpacebook/Suicide crisis line script to make it better. Still need to check the format it returns the country in, however. Is that still not an external package/library? If not, the script now fully works in-house with Wikipedia/WMF, using no external services. TheSpacebook (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I realise that this proposal is slightly different, but the comments that I made at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161 § Proposal to add suicidal disclaimer at Suicide and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 192 § Suicides still stand. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I quite plainly believe it is not within Wikipedia's mandate to have this sort of thing on an article. Buddy Gripple (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Suicide prevention already does this, but it only displays the USA/Canada number, which I believe shows Western WP:BIAS. So I could maybe amend my proposal to have that page display the relevant suicide crisis number. TheSpacebook (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No, you should rescind the proposal entirely. This is not something we should be doing AT ALL. Any current examples of such need to be removed. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, you are wrong about the suicide prevention only showing the US/Canada number. The numbers for the Samaritans (UK) and the Netherlands's crisis line (113) are also present in the images. These images (and the one for the US/Canada number) are present as examples of prevention campaigns, not directory listings. There is, however, an imbalance in that article between US material and other countries. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you referring to these images in the article? I hardly think they count as anything for this discussion, but the Dutch number is in the caption. Also, is List of suicide crisis lines not a directory listing? But I’m glad we agree that there is an imbalance. Perhaps to redress this, the relevant line is displayed, and not the USA/Canada one for everyone. I don’t see the relevance for it to be on the article for non-USA/Canada readers.

TheSpacebook (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those images. They show prevention methods in use, just as the image at the top of the article shows a poster used in the US. This is not displaying the US/Canadian line for everyone. Yes, the list of suicide crisis lines is a directory. I also think it should be deleted. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m confused by This is not displaying the US/Canadian line for everyone, it literally is displaying the number for everyone, no? If List of suicide crisis lines was put up for AfD (which I’d oppose for it even being considered to be deleted), my theory is that it would be 'keeped', as per WP:IAR or some similar exceptional policy. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

As I said before, this image is present as an example of a prevention campaign not as a "here is the number to call" listing. It's a subtle distinction and I have no objection to removing that image. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Can I just clarify, I’m not proposing a banner to be placed on the page, I’m proposing something more subtle. For example, the third paragraph in Suicide methods could easily be reworded to include the script which displays the number, without looking so blatant: (emphasis added) Some suicides may be preventable by removing the means. Making common suicide methods less accessible leads to an overall reduction in the number of suicides. Some method-specific ways to do this include restricting access to pesticides, firearms, and known-used drugs. Other important measures… and calling a crisis hotline. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me that such a banner wouldn't have some unintended consequences. I know search engines and newspaper articles about suicide use them, but all kinds of stuff gets done for herd reasons. How do we know that a big obvious warning box would not itself prompt someone to move from a state of passive information consumption to a state of actively contemplating a personal action? The prompt could trigger the thought that "Someone thinks I might actually do it", which is one hop from "I might actually do it". Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I’m not proposing a banner. Just something more subtle. A banner would open a Pandora’s box and snowball into other content warnings, erring too close to WP:CENSORED. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

• So at the very least, this seems to require running a default gadget to change the content of an article in a manner that would be hard to editorially control. That doesn't seem like a good use of technical resources to me, without even getting in to the problems related to invalidating caches or editor issues of having this be interface-admin protection content. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Noted. The aim of this is to subtly include the text in the article. But, I’ll add a 'default text' parameter to display if there isn’t a number available, that can be unique to each use of the script. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I hadn't thought through the techical aspects of this before. The proposal seems to be to present different content to different people. As far as I am aware that is something we stopped doing, for very good reason, about fifteen years ago when we gave up turning linked dates around. Do we really propose to start doing that again? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  I’ve completely reworked my proposal, it's vastly different from displaying dates and content warning disclaimers. It can be found at User:TheSpacebook/lifeline. I can’t find anything the exact same as what I’m proposing. Whilst they use geolocation, all previous suggestions seem to be some sort of banner/warning. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  But you seem to be suggesting displaying different content to different people based on their location. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. But there isn’t a specific rule against doing it for this tool/template as per WP:5P5. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  There isn't a specific rule against me sticking my left index finger in my ear and singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" while drinking a glass of champagne, but that doesn't make it a good idea. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

  If in the UK, s/Star-Spangled Banner/God Save the King/ ^[1]
  1. except in Wales or Scotland, or for those in Northern Ireland from one community. And republicans, anarchists, and those who switch Javascript off. Those using TOR, VPN, or who have activated add blockers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It would simply be far better than a script as to have one page, likely in WP space for the purpose, to give the read a list of numbers to contact if they feel suicidal and need help. Not dynamic , but absolutely clear what number they should use by country list. A separate mainspace page that identifies these numbers is also fine, but there's likely a different format and purpose there, to inform, not to urge getting assistance.
Whether to include it on topics that directly deal with suicide, that's a separate issue. I think our disclaimers warn about medical advice and this would seem to fall within it. — Masem (t) 12:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Previous discussions have come out against this type of proposal, because it would be almost impossible to maintain an accurate and up to date list of phone numbers for every country, or to identify with 100% accuracy where the reader was located. This is an idea that is well meaning but is unlikely to work well in real life situations.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand all the concerns. Just thought I’d offer up a solution which met in the middle when this issue is raised, and be subtle to avoid a disclaimer. WMF said that they already maintain this database in the previous discussion and have more advanced tools to geolocate users: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_192#Suicides. My proposal is in good faith, the subtle template seems like something WMF could do a lot better with their advanced tools etc. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Masem there is meta:Mental health resources, curated by WMF. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support-ish but for different reasons: I am pretty sure the suicide prevention hotlines are promoted for legal reasons on various news sources, and not just because they want to. No one wants to be found legally liable for harboring content which promotes or shows instructions on how to do this. This seems like a good application of WP:IAR to WP:NDIA. We are not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but we also need to seriously consider the social impact of having such content on Wikipedia. We can prevent auto redirection from search or clicking and direct users to here: m:Mental health resources. Would like to hear input from WMF on this. Awesome Aasim 17:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Yes, but I support hatnotes that professionals with suicide-prevention training agree will do no harm. I oppose such notes by well intentioned editors without such trainig or experience. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

  Well, yes. Promoting such crisis lines may prevent a suicide, or may push the reader into it, as Elli says below. I don't think anyone has presented evidence either way. As I said in one of the other discussions about this, human psychology often moves in mysterious ways. Then there is the libertarian argument (to which I do not subscribe, but many on Wikipedia seem to) that we shouldn't do anything that interferes with personal choice anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose we already have a hatnote on the article to Suicide prevention, which is more than we'd do in any other similar situation. Anyone who wants access to a suicide hotline will be readily able to access one already; there is no need to push this in front of people so hard and I doubt it would have any benefit (indeed, I think it might actually push people away from those resources). Not even focusing on the implementation difficulties. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Allow all autoconfirmed users to move pages without leaving a redirect

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

---

While redirects from page moves are commonly kept, there are reasons why they should not be kept as seen at WP:PMRC. For example, moving an article to draft space or to reverse page moves vandalism. This is common even for those without special tools (such as page mover or admin). This is so that normal users do not have to tag the page to request deletion and saves times for the admins (and users with the page mover tool) to do the work. Obviously this will not be an option for unregistered or new users, or for pages that are already move protected. The 'leave a redirect' button (or something along those lines) will be on by default and users who need to remove the redirect will have to manually press a button to turn it off. JuniperChill (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Opposed: Being granted pagemover isn't that big a deal, but it does require you to demonstrate that you understand the relevant policies, and a quick look at WP:PERM/PM shows me that most requests are denied. Granting this to all autoconfirmed users with no human review would be unadvisable. RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Per the change in focus, I'm opposed even to making this automatic for all extended confirmed users. If you really need the ability, just apply at WP:PERM/PM when you get the required experience. RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, I wouldn't feel comfortable with trusting all autoconfirmed users to move a page without leaving a redirect. At the very most, I would slightly support having it for all extended confirmed users (but not autoconfirmed). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose autoconfirmed is trivial, and vandalism of "disappearing" articles (by moving them to say another namespace) can be annoying to fix, can result in patrolling get skipped, and is certainly disruptive to readers. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for autoconfirmed, support for extended confirmed. A person who games extended confirmed to make vandalistic moves will quickly find that their extended confirmed permission is gone. Awesome Aasim 16:48, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose even for extended confirmed - we already have rampant violations of the WP:PMRC criteria by page movers, and don't need to make it worse. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Own comment, I want to change this to all extended confirmed users, but does the discussion above need to be closed and I have to make a separate one below? It will be the same text I said earlier, but with small changes so that it is now all EC users. JuniperChill (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think that we are so bureaucratic as to require you to start a new discussion, but I guess that if any of the editors who has already commented objects you should. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I can leave this discussion to be (leave it as it is) because some others have suggested supporting it for EC users instead. JuniperChill (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose even for extended confirmed. It's not difficult for anyone that needs and can be trusted with this right to apply for it. If they don't need it then it's just hat collecting. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose even for extended confirmed, per Pppery, Phil Bridger and Xaosflux. Most moves should leave a redirect but many people (even some admins) don't understand this, the pagemover right is a necessary (but not sufficient) check to ensure that the relevant policies and guidelines have been read and understood. Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose even for extended confirmed. It shouldn't be a thing for anyone but trusted users - all it will lead to is disruption. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• oppose, as this would create many controversial page moves and page-move disputes that are prevented by the existence of a redirect. Uncontroversial page moves can be requested at the tecnical requests page.InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Weak support for extended confirmed users. As these users are more experienced, aware of the policies and guidelines, I believe that little or no disruption would occur if they could move pages without making redirects, to move pages using the Round-robin method. As we currently have less than 1300 page movers, this would make certain processes (such as moving an accepted draft to mainspace, or reverting page-move vandalism) less bureaucratic and more automatic. I also admit that I never understood why we have a user with the right only to move pages, used by only 1400 editors of which the majority are administrators.InTheAstronomy32 (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone who is autoconfirmed can move pages. The pagemover right lets you delete the redirect that is left behind. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose both (as a pagemover). Solution in search of a problem. The speedy deletion system is perfectly sufficient to delete these errant redirects. Queen of ♡ | speak 06:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Post closure comment - Looks like I should have said ECP users, but it looks like the proposal will still not survive regardless. I counted 0/10 support for AC users and 3 for EC users (excluding the proposer). I made this proposal because of the amount of times its useful to not leave a redirect, as stated above but other than that, keep it. Maybe at least from main to draftspace, redirects would be deleted regardless. I didn't think that by this way, non admins could effectively delete the page when it was actually moved elsewhere

(not sure if this is the right place to put post closure comments as it is just below the discussion, just no more support/oppose votes) JuniperChill (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Replace disabled Graphs with other templates that work

So, the Graph extension is not going to be working again for a very long time. Graph was disabled 1 year ago, and they are re building it from the ground up, just starting to gather the people necessary for the project, which the update says will start in July. In my opinion, we need a solution until then. 18,236 pages have disabled graphs, including some very heavy traffic articles. Here is a list with more than 100k total views on my user page. (Here is the full list generated dynamically, but takes a long time and eats a lot of RAM). These include very heavy traffic and important articles such as Facebook, Murder trial of O. J. Simpson, and World War II. All of these articles you could argue are currently incomplete because there is information that is there but can't be displayed to the user.

There are alternative templates that work currently, such as Template:Bar chart,Template:Bar box, Template:Vertical bar chart, Template:Pie chart, Template:Piechart, and various others. There are some that I can't see a currently working template for, such as line, area and map. I don't know much about creating templates, but I think it'd be technically possible to create those. If a map chart template wouldn't be possible or easy, you could also have a bot or human take the map charts, recreate it offline, upload it to Commons, then place the image in the article.

You could put the bar charts and pie charts in the working templates via a bot (the chart wouldn't look exactly the same, but at least the data would be visible). Maybe the bot could be a pending changes bot to make sure it actually displays correctly and accurately. Especially pie charts, as its literally just a circle divided in parts with different colours. For the high traffic or important articles, if you can't replace them via a different template (map charts), you could recreate them manually as an SVG. MarkiPoli (talk) 06:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This means pages like Transportation safety in the United States and road traffic safety is a pain to read because it mostly relies on using its own graphs and not some images. I think pages that mostly rely on the now disabled graphs should have priority because otherwise, it is useless. While far from the most popular, it is still a problemJuniperChill (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow, those articles are striking examples... 38 and 16 disabled graphs respectively. As you say, at that point the article becomes borderline useless. It would probably take too long to do manually without a bot though. MarkiPoli (talk) 11:03, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

For articles like this, the problem is that those sections just need to be rewritten. That's not an encyclopedic overview of the topic, it's just a statistics dump. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Using static images would be an unfortunate backwards step: a big advantage of Module:Graph was that we could including a machine-readable version of the underlying data on Commons, greatly increasing its transparency, usefulness, and ease of editing. But since the WMF have really screwed this one up, we might not have a choice. – Joe (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Existing templates should be used and new templates should be made where possible, and only as a last resort would we use static SVGs. As for machine-readability, I'm not sure exactly how that works, maybe others have more insight MarkiPoli (talk) 11:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This is more idea lab fodder than a proposal, but a sufficiently clever bot might convert data into SVG, checking where repeated work may be necessary because the data has changed more recently than the SVG. Certes (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Should list articles have images

Right now some list articles have images while others have had them removed.

I brought this up at User talk:Jimbo Wales § Do you believe lists of aircraft, tanks, and ships should have pictures? and Jimbo Wales suggested reopening the discussion, so I did so at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft § Images on list of aircraft, etc.. But someone said I should've done it here instead for more people to notice. Can people go join the discussion there, or should we just copy over what was said there over here? Dream Focus 03:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Lists can have free images to show what each item on the list looks like, but they cannot have non-free images since rarely the use of non-free images in lists meets all NFC criterion. A header/infobox image may be reasonable in such lists, but definitely not a per-item list. Masem (t) 03:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Some lists do have an image for every entry, e.g. List of London Underground stations. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Key is, those are all free, and there's no NFC issue to worry about. — Masem (t) 12:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

There is a binary assumption here between every item in the list having an image and the List as a whole having no images. There are options in between as well as those two, and a blanket guideline for all lists to pick one of these options seems too broad. CMD (talk) 03:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Each list is different.

• Sometimes no images are possible because there aren't any relevant, e.g. List of exoplanets detected by timing.
• Sometimes no images are possible because there are no free images available, e.g. List of Yu-Gi-Oh! GX characters.
• Sometimes a single header image is best, e.g. List of country calling codes
• Sometimes one image per section of the list works to provide additional context, but no more are possible/needed, e.g. List of railway lines in Great Britain
• Sometimes it's best to illustrate a selection of entries throughout the list, e.g List of rail accidents (2010–2019)
• Sometimes it's good to include an image for all/most entries, although almost only when there is a lot to say about them, e.g. List of London Underground stations
• When the subject of the list is a very visual thing, an image for each entry is near essential, e.g. List of national flags by design.

Which is best suited to a particular list can only be decided in the context of each individual list. Considerations include how long the list is, how much information is provided about each list entry, what free images are available, how large the image need to be to be recognisable, whether images add additional information or context, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Non-free images can be used where our fair use criteria apply. Paradoctor (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

But simply to have an illustration on a list is not a valid reason, per WP:NFLISTS — Masem (t) 12:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The biggest problem with having hundreds of images in an article, is that the browser will request ALL of these images from the server within a short timeframe. As this can overload the servers, especially if some of the thumbnails still need to be generated, some of those images might fail. It also tends to overload the memory of mobile phones, as it needs to load all this stuff into the memory and graphics buffers and mobile phones are limited. So as with so many issues. These are not binary, but SOME constraint is always warranted and where to put that is an editorial decision. But anything that assumes all or nothing is broken by (non)design. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, the length of the list matters here - illustrating every item in a list of 10 items is different to illustrating every item in a list of 1000 items. Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe one of the disputed articles here is List of active United States military aircraft, so at some level the question is "Should this list have 150+ images?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

List_of_Ancient_Greek_temples#List and other list of buildings always have a picture of the building.

What about vehicles though? List of sport utility vehicles and many other civilian vehicles have images of the items on their lists. But list of military vehicles do not, because of a discussion back in 2015 where four people voted to eliminate them, without most people noticing the discussion. They went through and erased them. I believe the list of military aircraft for example, looked better before [2] with images showing the aircraft listed. We need a set policy in place so we don't have small numbers of people deciding things without most realizing what's going on, or arguing over every single article.

Since all of you chose to discuss this here, instead of the other place I linked to, just pointing out what I said there. If people have slow bandwidth they can easily set their browsers to not automatically load images. Any website that has images they want to see, they click the icon at the top of their browser to then load them up. No reason to remove all images simply because some have slow internet. Dream Focus 09:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"they can easily set their browsers to not automatically load images" - only if they belong to the minute fraction of our readership who knows this, and how to do it. Other than loading issues, I see no reason why lists should not have images. The large category of Category:Lists of works of art are rather pointless without them. Johnbod (talk) 10:02, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

If the list item is a blue link then available image(s) of it are only one click away (and in a larger format). Related problems in aviation articles are the addition of large galleries (not advised by WP:GALLERY) and shoehorning multiple images in to articles with little text, add over length infoboxes (museums have a photo/logo and a map) and we have acres of white space above the navboxes. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you believe that a page looked better with images, restore them. The discussion you refer to cannot stop you. I hate to break it to you, but (WP:CREEPily) bringing in a guideline to regulate this extremely situational topic would be the definition of "small numbers of people deciding things without most realizing what's going on". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Then there would be a pointless edit war. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Polish military aircraft an editor stated:

we have a consensus to not put aircraft image into the inventory table, and intentionally ignoring the consensus may be considered as disruptive editing.

So I'm hoping far more people participate in this, and we can come to a standard agreement, and either add it to a guideline somewhere, or if nothing more, link to this discussion for the new consensus. Dream Focus 11:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what consensus would be applicable, other than "it depends". It's entirely situational whether images should be in any article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is too situational for universal guidance. If a prior consensus has determined that a specific list should/should not have images, and you disagree with that determination… remember that “consensus can change”. Go to the article talk page and discuss. Blueboar (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it would lead to a discussion, if anyone cares enough to revert you. WikiProject consensuses from nine years ago with five people participating were not binding then, and are still not now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

What an utterly pointless discussion. Given that neither a policy stating that 'no list article shall have images' nor one stating that 'all list articles must have images' would stand the slightest chance of ever gaining acceptance, the 'it depends' status quo is the only possible outcome here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree! Just depends on the subject really. There is no need for a overall concensus for all Wikipedia lists. Local concensus can be easily agree on the lists talk page. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• This is like asking whether lists should have prose or use tables – it obviously depends on the topic. Our best practice can be seen at WP:Featured lists which has relevant criteria: "It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions." There don't seem to be many aviation FL but a good example is List of aircraft operated by Scandinavian Airlines which has plenty of pictures and looks fine. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, very much horses for courses. Images tend to swell out each item, making it difficult to see much of a long comparative list at any one moment; fifty very similar thumbnails differing only in fine detail are no compensation. Many aircraft lists are of this type. On the other hand, visual features are often important identifiers, as with the List of X-planes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

If the number of available sample images is much less than the number of subject items, in each case it might be suitable to provide a hyperlink to a Commons image (or category). One example is List of surviving Douglas A-26 Invaders. PeterWD (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• IMO, Dream Focus exaggerated the initial problem, which was the decision not to include images into aircraft inventory table in articles dedicated to specific air forces or in lists of aircraft belonging to those air forces. However, he expanded the discussion into "Should list articles have images", which is a broader questions. Regarding this broader question, my stance aligns with Lee Vilenski, AndyTheGrump, Andrew, and Steelpillow suggesting it depends on the context. Additionally, Thryduulf has provided excellent examples for each context. Referring back to the initial problem, I believe the decision to not include images into aircraft inventory table aligns with the 5th context outlined by Thryduulf, which states that Sometimes it's best to illustrate a selection of entries throughout the list. Current articles on air forces or lists of aircraft belonging to those air forces do include a selection of images of aircraft, typically positioned beside the inventory table. Ckfasdf (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There is no one image rule you can apply to list articles because list articles aren't all the same. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Then its all up to whoever is around at the time to notice and argue about it. Some will go around and erase it unless a set rule is established preventing it. I really wish this conversation was being had all in one place. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Images_on_list_of_aircraft,_etc. shows clearly that some believe in removing all such images, because some of them have slow internet speed and because those using cell phones to access Wikipedia have trouble loading them. They can easily look through the settings of their browsers and set them to not load up images, or use a search engine to find out how. I am curious what sort of articles the cell phone users are accessing. I assume those just looking up a recent news story or celebrity gossip, or information they need at the moment for whatever they are doing. Is there a way to see how many people viewing an article are using a cell phone instead of something else? Dream Focus 11:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

We are not going to establish a 'set rule'. It simply isn't possible. There are just far too many factors to consider. And yes, this sometimes means that Wikipedia erases things. Like absolutely any other serious media project, anywhere. This is what is known as editorial judgement. Some of us clearly have it, and understand its purpose, even if you don't... AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

FWIW… I edit about 50/50 between computer and phone.

As for people removing images, that is allowed. Good Faith Editing involves both adding and removing stuff (that is why we are called “editors” and not “authors”.) There can be valid reasons to do either. If someone else (you) objects, take it to the talk page and discuss. Reach a new consensus and work from there. Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• If the image fits the list then fine. Images work well and have since lists were a twinkle in the eyes of Wales/Sanger. Many visual art lists are specifically about the images. This is another example of a theory I've bounced around that Wikipedians, when given limited number of things left to do as the years go by and being accustomed to doing many edits a day/week, will turn to deleting normal components of existing pages. Please be aware of this tendency and take it into account, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course, and videos, too. They won't slow down or crash mobile phones either, that's outdated info. At worst the images might take a bit to load, which is no reason not to have images at all. Levivich (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This is simply not true. it is very easy to memory overload a low end phone, especially if it's a couple of years old. This is mostly due to layout calculations on very long pages. It also adds additional load serverside, which is not insignificant. There is a reason why anything 'list' that the server generates uses a pager (next page/previous page) and is limited to 50 by default and 500 max. If people throw hundreds of images on a page, it has impact. Can it handle it ? yes, sometimes, sometimes not. Where is the edge ? Somewhere on a curve and the curve ends with a cliff. the exact shape is influenced by hundreds of variables (which is why you can't define a hard limit). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

You can't define a hard limit, but there are best practices. For anyone reading this who isn't familiar, what we're talking about is called "page weight," which is the total size, in kilobytes (KB) or megabytes (MB) (1 MB = about 1,000 KB), of a web page and all the other stuff that has to be loaded, including images. If the page weight is too big, it'll slow down the browser/device loading it. Of course, desktops can handle larger page weights than mobile devices.

The average page weight for a mobile device nowadays is over 2 MB according to, e.g., [3] and [4]. Now look at Special:Permalink/671675813, an old version of a list that has a lot of images on it -- 170 different images in total. The page weight of that page is 953 KB, a little less than 1 MB according to [5] (you can check any webpage's page weight using tools like the one at https://tools.pingdom.com). So that page has 170 images and it's less than half the average page weight of a mobile page today. (The last time the average mobile page weight was 1 MB was like 2016. So this list page with tons of images would have been a less-than-average-sized page in 2016; it's half the average today.)

And that makes sense because thumbnails are really small. Even though that page has 170 images, it's a total size of 844 KB for all images -- that's an average of about 5 KB per thumbnail image (and yes, almost all of the 1 MB page weight is the images). So with an average mobile page weight of 2 MB, and thumbnails of an average of 5 KB, we can have 400 thumbnails before we hit the average.

So I doubt that there are any significant number of devices in use today that can't handle, like, 50% or 40% of the current average mobile page weight. Even devices from 2016 would be able to handle 1 MB page weight. And adding thumbnails to lists -- at an average of 5 KB each -- is not going to impair the performance of the vast majority of mobile devices, unless the list gets to be over 400 images long. And that tells me why the server max is 500 images, makes sense.

And all that is assuming the mobile browser loads all those images at once, which I don't think it does because of lazy loading, which, according to our article on it, has been the default in browsers since 2020 (and the MediaWiki Lazyload extension is older than that).

DJ, what do I have wrong here? What kind of a mobile device still in use today would have trouble loading a web page that is less than 1 MB? Levivich (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal at Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians

There is a split proposal at Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians § Split proposal that may be of interest to editors. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 11:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)