Contents

Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

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

Before commenting, note:

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

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

« Archives, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58

What are your thoughts? Is it going to work? Comment down below. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 17:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i think it would be pretty cool, maybe for significant editors. Cyb3rstarzzz (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of fame topic; section break 1

• I'll bite. What do I get? Like, a room with a comfy chair? The one caution I would have about this is that there are some editors whose positive contributions to the encyclopedia would unquestionably earn them a spot, but who are presently indef-banned for other reasons. BD2412 T 17:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "The one caution I would have about this is that there are some editors whose positive contributions to the encyclopedia would unquestionably earn them a spot, but who are presently indef-banned for other reasons." That's a good point. Though, IMO, I don't think HOF should be behavior-exclusionary and should be open to anyone who has made an enduring impact on WP, regardless of how they made the impact. For instance, I say induct Jordan French (maybe not in the inaugural cohort, but eventually). Chetsford (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Chetsford on this. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  French certainly made an impact but then so did many LTA vandals. If this idea is adopted, it seems appropriate to limit membership to those who have shown altruism rather than encouraging those who make Wikipedia worse for personal gain. Certes (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Never say never. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 13:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, that's a good point, Certes. I think this was intended more as an exaggeration for emphasis that we not be rules-bound for a HOF, but probably not a good example to underscore that! Anyway, I agree with your suggestion. Chetsford (talk) 15:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have a lot of perks for experienced editors (Special holidays, Wikimedian of the Year, Editor of the Week, Service awards, ...), and I honestly don't think we need yet another way to separate "elite" Wikipedians from the rest of us. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Similar to Internet Hall of Fame, to be serious, there would need to be a reliable advisory board. They can help surface little known but important people from the early founder days. It could be a popular vote nomination process, like the Nobel, but picking the winners would need a small august body, known for deep institutional knowledge and experience. After a few rounds/years of winners, those winners then become members of the advisory board. Overall this is probably something that should be organized by WMF. Or you can just do it, but it will be another "This one is special. This one is also special" award. -- GreenC 18:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @GreenC, i like the discussion here of this idea, but how about an opposite approach? such as, anyone who wants to be in the hall of fame, can be?? and maybe split it up by topic, so that it would have some actual useful format to make it readable to others? Sm8900 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I like it. While we may have a superfluidity of awards, these cost essentially nothing to produce so I'm not sure I ever understand the resistance. All recognition systems are voluntary and those who don't approve can opt-out. Moreover, a HoF -- if managed through some approximation of the way GreenC describes -- would be different from existing accolades which are either interpersonal recognition (editor to editor) or metric-based recognition (e.g. Four Award, etc.). Chetsford (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of fame topic; section break 2

• Of course they "cost nothing to produce", that's not the problem, the problem is that they give one more excuse to divide Wikipedians between "the ones who have power" (i.e. the unblockables) and the plebs like us. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It might be a good idea. 3.14 (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The key questions for any initiative is what is the objective, and how helpful is the initiative in achieving this objective? For recognition programs, it's important to also consider how the selection process will work, and whether or not it will create more difficulties than benefits gained. Recognition programs are tricky because the flip side of selecting some is that many others are not selected, and that can result in conflict. isaacl (talk) 02:36, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's how recognition programs work, but I don't think they'll necessarily cause any conflict. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "it's important to also consider how the selection process will work" After the inaugural cohort is selected, maybe it should become self-perpetuating with all prior inductees selecting each subsequent cohort. (Though you'd still need some system to choose the inaugural cohort.) This would mitigate politicization and degradation as inducted members would have a vested interest in maintaining its reputational coherence. Chetsford (talk) 05:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be difficult if they are dead or so long retired from WP they don't give a toss about the place anymore/are out of touch about who is still active and "deserves" a shout. - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "would be difficult if they are dead" I imagine it would. Chetsford (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would object to exclusion of the deceased. There are some amazing editors who left us too soon, but with great work done first. BD2412 T 02:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't mean a blanket exclusion, just that we will ensure that batches of cohorts keep on coming; this line of discussion was about a proposal to have each cohort select the next. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think we'll select a cohort that are all dead or inactive, for the reasons you've mentioned. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it best if you don't have any intake at all: voting for one's friends make this an inbred and insular process. As I've said before (as has Chaotic Enby), this is a bad idea - divisive and with the potential for conflict when the "wrong" people are elected and the "right" people over looked. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The English Wikipedia Hall of Fame idea sounds peachy keen, as Babe Ruth would say before tying his hands behind his back and hitting a home run with his neck (Ruth is, all kidding aside, the most underrated ballplayer in baseball history). The initial "class" obviously would include J and L, the pioneering heroes of our story, and I can think of several others who would be obvious. That first class probably shouldn't be large, maybe 7 or 8 inductees. Then the rules get tricky, but doable. In a perfect world we'd lock J and L in a room until they get to a place where they can come up with a plan of how to handle this that everyone says "Of course that's how it should be done". But, bottom line, I think an EWHoF is a good idea all around (without WMF involvement). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A second rate popularity contest with ill-defined criteria? What could possibly go wrong. Terrible and divisive idea. You think someone's great - give 'em a barnstar, or, even better, leave them a thank you note, but to 'promote' people who will undoubtedly be divisive to others? That way grief and conflict lies. And this ignores the fact that "hall of fame" is not a worldwide concept that people everywhere readily grasp or buy into.- SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Schro, the procedure is akin to the Wikimedian of the Year, except that it exclusively concentrates on the English Wikipedia. There's a purpose for these initiatives, and I firmly disagree that this is a "bad idea." Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 13:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are, of course, entitled to disagree. For what it's worth, I think the Wikimedian of the Year is a fairly crap award too, being a process with no criteria and something else that divides, rather than unites. Most people are happy to do the work for the sake of the work, not to seek vacuously external praise or validation just because they've caught the eye of someone powerful or happen to be pushing a zeitgeist line of thinking. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As you haven't yet stated the purpose behind your suggestion, nor proposed a process, there isn't enough info to understand the potential benefits and costs. There's an understandable view that costs quickly outweigh benefits as any process involves more people, adding up to more total effort expended. isaacl (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of fame topic; section break 3

• More awards? At this rate, all our time will be spent giving ourselves pats on the back and giving each other shiny things. While I don't agree with the more extreme anti-award views (take wiktionary for example; wikt:Template:User barnstar has been nominated for deletion twice, and been described as cheesy and gaudy. I don't think we need all that Wikipedia's tinsel to encourage people.), we shouldn't go overboard with this. Cremastra (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (the correct link is wikt:Template:User Barnstar, with a capital B. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Cremastra (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's okay if you choose not to participate in the process. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How would one choose not to participate? I would not participate, but saying so would make it look as if I thought I stood a chance of being elected, which I do not. I imagine that most of those who would choose not to participate think the same way. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 16:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much like anything on Wikipedia which encourages elitism, political campaigns, cliques, inequality, etc. I can imagine that many wiki-politicians would waste a lot of time campaigning to be elected to a HOF and that the results would be divisive. "How come so-and-so got elected, and I didn't?" Smallchief (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this sort of thing is better left to other sites. Maybe the people who hang out at Wikipediocracy would create a Wikipedia Hall of Fame? Or would it become a Wikipedia Hall of Infamy? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I especially don't like the idea of putting infamous characters in a HOF. Follow baseball standards. Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson are not in the baseball HOF because of scandal, despite being qualified. No bad actors, no matter how famous, in a HOF. Smallchief (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point, but Wikipedia is not baseball. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. Baseball is a sport where defeating others on the field is encouraged. Wikipedia is a cooperative endeavour where it's frowned on. Certes (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this program is designed for honoring purposes rather than competition. I hope that's clear to all. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In that case, it seems the honor should not be of the Wikipedian itself, but of the work that they accomplished in a given area. That's why the Barnstars exist, of course. Just as WP:NPA encourages us to comment on the content and not on the creator, so too should we be aware to not place individual people on a pedestal.

  Frankly I find it disappointing that, in bringing forth the idea, the OP has not brought forth any comprehensive or detailed arguments in support of this idea and in response to the above critique. We are simply discussing a nebulous concept of recognition, which I think Wikipedia already addresses, and which if people really needed to see more of, they could use other websites or mediums for this purpose. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And we do celebrate content, quite satisfactorily, with DYK and TFA. So there is no need for a "hall of fame", it's just more self-congratulation. Cremastra (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

section break 4; [wikilounge idea]

• how about a lounge WikiLounge for experienced wikipedians? would that be immediately misused, or could it serve a helpful purpose? Sm8900 (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would just be a way to create an in-group, and I don't really see how it would help the project. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 13:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Enby. What purpose would that serve? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Who decides who is experienced enough? On what basis? I hope it's not edit count, which can vary enormously between people having the same overall effect. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Like an actual lounge, or some cliquey forum that would do nothing to benefit the project? All these ideas go against our core principles. Cremastra (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ok, fair enough; all of these points are quite valid. so then, how about a lounge which would be labeled as being open to all experienced wikipedians, plus anyone who wishes to shmooze with them? that way, we are actually opening it to everyone, but giving it an underlying theme for those who are interested.

  to use an analogy, it would be like opening a lounge for woodworkers, or one for musicians, or one for ferryboat drivers, and also admitting anyone interested in that specialty. it would be basically open to anyone, and yet the theme would be clearly stated in terms of the specialty which is its actual focus. Sm8900 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  can an editor nominate themselves for this "Hall of Fame"? if so, then it might preserve the grassroots nature of wikipedia, and still have a positive effect. kind of like hanging out at the local skateboard park, and popping wheelies to show off one's skills to other fellow aficionados. Sm8900 (talk) 20:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Don't we already have every single needed discussion "board" known to Man? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What would actually be the point of having a lounge with this theme? Like, how would it help the project like, say, the Wikipedia:Teahouse, the Wikipedia:Help desk or the Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard does? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea of an "experienced user lounge" very much echoes of Wikipedia:Esperanza which, although it did result in useful derivative projects, very much had a problem back in its day with regards to ingroup/outgroup behavior. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• One downside of this proposal is that it would involve a fair amount of the electorate's time if they are not to just elect people who they already know. That time would be better spent improving the encyclopedia, which is what we are here for (or at least are supposed to be here for). Phil Bridger (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  another idea; how about simply call it something whimsical or jocular, such as "Wikipedia League of Super-friends"? or "league of adventurers"? that way, it still retains the air of a unique league, yet it would be clear it is not anything awarding actual higher privileges here. Sm8900 (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I still don't see what the actual point is. Even with a funny name, it will still be a pretty divisive thing. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Divisive programs, like the WP:Editor of the week, already exist. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 22:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And that's not an excuse to have more of them. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 22:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, if you say so. Let us see if we can reach a consensus. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 23:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 5

• Editor of the Week was set up with a specific goal in mind: to demonstrate appreciation of specific positive behaviours and collaborative spirit by its recipients, with an explicit disclaimer that it's not intended to be a judgement about their overall characteristics. It was deliberately set up as a no-big-deal award with a very lightweight process, to avoid making it something that people would argue a lot about. The original pool of candidates was lesser-known editors, in order to give them a bit more encouragement to continue contributing, but has since been broadened to anyone. It's basically a slightly fancier barnstar, with some people slapping recipients on the back with a "good job". As a result of this carefully planned design, it hasn't fostered division. isaacl (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many such award schemes have been previously proposed. Only two, to my knowledge, still function: WP:QAI, because of the dedication of one editor, and WP:EOTW. If you want another one, set it up and run it yourself—if people like it, you can then apply to formalize it as a Wikipedia-wide process. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I'm not sure what I'm opposing here, but whatever it is, I'm against it.

Anyway, the Service Awards are good because they are purely mechanical and entirely removed from politics. Entirely: If you're banned, you qualify. If everyone hates you, you qualify. If you drove your car up the steps and into the door of the Wikimedia Foundation offices on purpose, you qualify. Also, you continue to accrue service time -- which is measured from the date of your first edit, and does not take into account gaps -- after you're dead. So, if service time is the limiting factor for you, you will progress up the levels even after your demise, and I know of one editor who is. So... Maybe our Hall of Fame could be only for deceased editors. After all, you have to be dead five years before you're eligible for the baseball Hall of Fame. Then I think most people would be "Oh its nice to remember Smith" and not upset about the politics. My 2c. Herostratus (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about a Hall of Shame?

I know generally we are a bit negative especially when it comes to disruption, which is why we generally note previous hurdles as a cautionary tale of what not to repeat. A reminder everyone is human. A hall of fame will make editors more concerned with scoring brownie points than actually improving the project. Awesome Aasim 20:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Wikipedia:STOCKS, more than this would actually be more harmful than it might help. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 20:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know. I was just thinking about why we have a hall of shame but not a hall of fame. Awesome Aasim 00:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The stocks aren't a hall of shame, it's a humourous list of mistakes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome Aasim, isn't WP:Long term abuse already kind of that? — 🌙Eclipse ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page should not really be intended to be a 'hall of shame' due to WP:DENY and WP:BEANS (none of which apply to the village stocks in comparison). Xeroctic (talk) 19:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wealready have a hall of shame. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An idea that might work: A Wikipedia statue

In place of the Hall of Fame, which doesn't seem to be going anywhere, how about this: Wikipedians can request that the Foundation agree to raise funds for and construct a Wikipedia statue featuring Jimbo Wales, Larry Sanger, and a stylized rendition of Wikipedia and Wikipedians enlarged and forever enlarging behind them (with, of course, the incomplete-globe logo somewhere in the mix). This should be a major statue, not a small standing one, and incorporate the full quality and historical significance of the encyclopedia.

Wales and Sanger should have no veto in the idea of their inclusion in the statue but both probably should have input on the final design of their figures portrayed at the time of Wikipedia's founding. Many of the world's major sculptors should either compete for the final design or submit ideas for it. If done well, with a full mix of realism and modern art, it would be beautiful, educational, and honor the two initiators, the tens of thousands of volunteers, and the concept of knowledge itself. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would sound good to me, though I fear that some may think it's spending they should focus on technical debt, which may or may not be valid. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aaron. It feels like a reasonable idea, the community asking the Foundation to do something like this. As for expense, focused fundraising works. Major funders, both former and potential, often like to focus their money on specific goals. Some may delight in funding the expansion of tech, others would appreciate the chance to fund an artwok, some might be glad to fund a full evening Wikibanquet as well as add more scholarships to the regional conferences. A large well-done statue (and please also appreciate the Wikipedia Monument) dedicated to the free sharing of knowledge would catch the eye of some art loving major funders, so that shouldn't be an issue. If I was a tech giant it'd be funded already. Imagine the design proposals that would come in. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons did it. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A true Wikipedia statue should be a big framework sphere like this but with the design of the Wikipedia globe logo, and made of little shelves. The public to be encouraged to climb all over it and place (and remove) items of their choosing on the shelves. A webcam to make it a live-streaming sensation. Activate the fountains below to hose it down regularly. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guy brings Vitamin C effervescent tablets Aaron Liu (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting idea, if one drops the silliness of including Sanger. The man had as much input into the founding of this as Ronald Wayne did for Apple. That is, hardly a thing. Zaathras (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOLARSHIP generally allows PhD dissertations and generally disallows Master's theses, unless they have had "significant scholarly influence." I feel that this is really locking us out from a lot of very reliable sourcing. I understand that these are often not quite as polished as something like a monograph or PhD dissertation, but often times they are the highest quality sources available about very niche subject matters. They are subject to professional review, they cite their sources, and they are published by reliable institutions. Can we really say that these are less reliable than an entry in a historical society newsletter or an online news report from an assuredly hurried local journalist?

Just today I encountered a 2022 masters thesis, East Meets West in Cheeloo University (doi:10.7916/scmr-6237). As far as I can tell, this is the most comprehensive source available on the architecture of Cheeloo University. But I can't use it, since it's a masters thesis, and as far as Google Scholar can tell, it has yet to be cited elsewhere.

I feel that people should be allowed to use masters theses in certain fields (I can only speak for the humanities, I'd be interested to know this from a STEM perspective) so long as A) They are not used to dispute something said in reliable sources and B) They are not used to confer notability. I feel this would strike a good balance of allowing us to use these often very useful sources, while still recognizing that a book, journal article, or PhD thesis is probably preferable if you have the choice between them. I'd love to hear other folks thoughts! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the stem area I would expect that important research would also be published in journals. I would discourage use of Masters theses rather than disallow. One issue is lack of accessability. Even when referenced, may not be accessible. The lack of "peer" review can also mean there are more errors included. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any public information generally available about the process of publishing masters' theses for a given university? What level of scrutiny or review is generally applied, etc. I think considering whatever information is available there could lend a lot of clarity to deciding whether a given thesis is reliable. Remsense诉 02:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The rule in question is a counsel of perfection but perfect is the enemy of good and so WP:IAR applies. By coincidence, notice that today's featured article is about a work which started as a dissertation. The main thing I notice about this is that the readership for this topic is tiny. If you're working on a topic like the architecture of an obscure university that no longer exists, then you're mainly writing to please yourself and so should do what you think best. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I both agree and don't, to the extent that I don't think less popular topics should be viewed as less important as regards our content policies. Of course, I certainly understand the distinction between there being less available coupled with internal motivation, and that. Remsense诉 06:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd question whether Master's theses are really subject to professional revieworpublished by reliable institutions. By professional review, I assume you mean that somebody examines them. But unlike a PhD examination or journal peer review, which both act as barriers to publication, getting a low grade on a Master's thesis doesn't stop the thesis existing. The author can still put it online – presumably without the grade. Also, and speaking as a university teacher myself, the person who examined it examined it as a Master's thesis, not as a piece of publishable research. A middling or good grade means "I think the student did a good job with this material" not "I think this is a reliable source on this subject". As for publication, in my experience most Master's theses are not published (though those that are, e.g. in a journal, certainly become reliable sources). Some university libraries make archived copies available online, but this isn't really the same thing because again, any Master's theses that meets the formal requirements for submission will be there, regardless of quality. – Joe (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, I didn't think about the barrier to publication angle. I guess if we think about them more along the lines of a newspaper article (which can be of wildly different quality) then we could just evaluate them on their own merits. Just like how there is great journalistic coverage of some areas of history and archaeology, there is horrible, misleading coverage; and if it's not used as a major source in the article, it's pretty easy to spot when it's the latter. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Purely anecdotal, but with respect to professional review, the only person on my master's thesis committee (my director) who understood what I was doing left on sabbatical half-way through. His replacement as chair kept me on the straight and narrow in my use of statistics, but knew no more about what I was doing than the rest of the committee. In retrospect, I can say that my thesis did not add anything useful to the sum total of human knowledge. On the other hand, I have dug into the bibliography section in a thesis to find sources I had otherwise missed, but that is a long shot. - Donald Albury 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If we would accept a blog post from the university itself (which would be self-published, primary, and non-independent) for the same kind of contents, then we should probably accept a master's thesis for it. A source only needs to be strong enough to support the weight of the claims it's cited for. If they're non-controversial (e.g., everyone agrees that there are some buildings on the campus), then the source doesn't have to be ideal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe that you are referring to WP:ABOUTSELF. My understanding of that is that we could cite the thesis for statements about the thesis and the author of the thesis, but not for statements about topics covered by the thesis. Donald Albury 22:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really. With the possible exception of contentious BLP matter, I think we should accept it for pretty much all non-controversial content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that rigid exclusion of master's theses does not serve the project well. The language in WP:SCHOLARSHIP regarding Ph.D. dissertations would seem also to address many of the concerns above: Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by independent parties. (Of course, this issue would also be solved more efficiently by treating this guideline like a guideline to be applied flexibly in service of the mission rather than as a pseudo-policy that must be followed rigidly except in the most exceptional circumstances -- but that seems to be a bit too much to ask these days.) -- Visviva (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I have come across some very high quality master's theses and agree that rigid exclusion of master's theses does not serve the project well. I had to work around this on Revolt of the Admirals and it was painful. In the case of my own master's thesis, it was thoroughly reviewed by two external examiners (as well as, of course, by my supervisor). It is available online and widely cited in the literature. The PhD was reviewed by three external reviewers, but is not as widely cited, and while also available online, I never got around to publishing it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there's some regional differences here. In Europe, a Master's thesis isn't examined by a committee and their are no external examiners, just the supervisor. – Joe (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that theses provide weak arguments for controversial points, as do other sources often accepted as reliable such as news articles or unreplicated one-off studies (I also think that there are many PhD dissertations that are questionable.) But, in writing research on historical topics, I these can be very useful and informative. They often provide a well-cited overview of a particularly esoteric topic that may not be the focus of a book or major study, which interested readers can read an analyze themselves. I like using them when they can be linked so readers can view them. As others have pointed out, At bare minimum, I'd like to be able to cite them even if they aren't standalone. (e.g., sometimes I can get the point cited by a book by a mainstream press, but it covers the topic in a sentence, whereas the dissertation gives the in-depth detail.) Wtfiv (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theses are a mixed bag. Master's thesis even more so. I can say that mine went through a rigorous review process (I had a former president of the Canadian Association of Physicists as an external examiner on mine) as well as one other physics PhD, and had two physics PhD as my supervisors. The comments/feedback were substantive and relevant, and had to be addressed before acceptance.

But go to a different department, in the same university, and the reviewing standards and requirements for a master's thesis are quite different. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Visviva said above, if people treat the guideline like a policy that "no masters theses can be cited for anything (or they can only be cited if lots of other people cite and repeat what they say, making it unnecessary to cite them), because we assume no masters thesis has ever been reviewed and made reliable; meanwhile, PhD theses are reliable because we're assuming every one has been reviewed by reviewers who know what they were doing", that's a problem (in fact, it's two problems separated by a semicolon). I think it would make more sense, as Visviva seems to be suggesting, to apply the same kinds of evaluative criteria as are supposed to be applied to PhD theses to both PhD and Masters theses, plus OP's suggestion that we don't use them to contradict a more reliable source; together with the fact that tighter sourcing requirements are already in effect for BLPs, medical topics, and various contentious topics, we'd in practice only cite masters theses when there was reason to think they were reliable for the uncontentious thing we were citing them for, e.g. the architecture of a particular university, which seems reasonable. (As WhatamIdoing said, if we'd accept a passing aside in blog post by the university as reliable for saying the buildings were neoclassical, it seems weird to reject a masters thesis all about the buildings being neoclassical.) Notability seems like a separate issue and it seems reasonable to say masters theses also don't impart much notability. -sche (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As per Graeme Bartlett's comment, if the underlying research in a master's thesis is of sufficient quality to source, the author should have or would have submitted it for publication to a journal. If sources used in the literature review are beneficial, then just directly cite those, don't cite the thesis (I've used many master's theses to discover references for WP articles, but I've never directly cited the thesis). My thesis was looked at by external examiners but it was certainly not done with the same critical eye as they would have applied to a Ph.D. dissertation. Opening this door seems like a recipe for disaster. Chetsford (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I agree most with WhatamIdoing here. Master's theses face nowhere near the oversight of that PhD theses do, but it's still generally going to be much more thorough work than the newspaper articles that make up the bulk of Wikipedia citations. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I used to teach a Master's course at the University of Birmingham (UK)aimed at non-college grads. The thesis was just part of the course. There's no way these could have been used as sources for Wikipedia. I've seen a US thesis which was also part of a taught course and not reliably published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• What Doug said. The only use I'd ever consider appropriate for a Masters thesis not already cited in a published reliable source would be as a research tool for references. The level of scrutiny such material gets varies wildly, and none of it is being examined as material intended for publication. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I would sooner accept an undergraduate research paper/thesis than say, a newspaper story from 1900 (which often seem embellished). There's no such thing as a medium that is universally perfect by nature of how it is created. Even the Voyager Record reflects the biases of its creation and the time it was made, despite the immense cost and effort put into it. Wikipedians who place newspaper articles above master's theses are cherry-picking which forms of subpar scholarship they care about. There are many, many examples or allegations of subpar reporting from A-grade or B-grade news organizations. You could browse through criticism sections on The New York TimesorReuters, or reference the criticism levied by people like Alec Karakatsanis. Master's theses should be allowed like most other "reliable" sources - on a case by case basis, subject to comparison to other reliable sources. Such theses are often the best or only source on obscure topics, and average arrive closer to verifiability than their exclusion would. Anonymous-232 (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not really addressing the issues being discussed, which are more about a lack of peer review allowing basic errors in rhetoric and research to be transmitted, rather than the more abstract cultural concerns you're gesturing to. We can't "use them on a case by case basis" if there's no other sources to check them for errors against. They're not reliable.Remsense诉 20:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've used and seen used master's theses in articles, and agree with a lot of the people here. I'm not sure which if any academic departments fully fact check every claim in the master's theses they go on to approve, but the same is true for most publication media. My position can be summarised as Use cautiously and replace with better source where possible.

Also, honestly, have yall seen what's out there in the wild in mainspace? The people who frequent this board tend to be responsible editors, and take our sourcing pretty seriously, but the amount of truly garbage sources cited like they're totally unproblematic is deafening. A master's thesis, despite the potential flaws, is head and shoulders above a blog post, a self-published book, a blog post someone uploaded to academia.edu, a google books search result, ViralFinance.info's "Top 150 Most Disuptive Blockchainers of 2019", an Amazon product listing, a 1930s travellogue published by a popular printing house but cited like it's a legitimate historical source for a period centuries prior, literature that's long been superseded by newer research that's more difficult to access than one-click borrowing from Internet Archive, etc.

Sorry I kinda lost the trail there. In most cases, a master's thesis will not be the best source. But I don't think we need to (nor, indeed, do) straitjacket ourselves with a blanket ban if no one else has bothered to publish on some obscuratum that would improve an article to include. Folly Mox (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost completely unrelated, but if we had something like a Reference: namespace, we could attach things like levels of confidence in a source, and represent that somehow to the reader, like changing the little blue clicky numbers from blue to orange for sources that are not too tier. Folly Mox (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Folly Mox yes! This is something meta:WikiCite/Shared Citations could address ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see I somehow haven't registered my written support for that project, despite being aware of it for a year or so. I see the allure of wanting to make a big software architecture like that work all across the Wikimedia ecosystem, and have concerns about how it would translate technically into different spaces, ✂️ [three paragraphs of yelling at clouds trimmed and binned] Folly Mox (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:SuperHamster/CiteUnseen adds icons according to RSP. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right there is that, and WP:UPSD and User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/CiteHighlighter also provide borderline similar functionality. Folly Mox (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An uncontroversial, "change X to Y" request can be done just as easily using a normal discussion thread. The edit request facility exists for low-activity protected articles where there is a need to summon an editor to handle the request; otherwise the request could sit unseen or ignored for years. In my experience, edit request is used far more often for changes that are not uncontroversial, and/or are not in the required "change X to Y" format. This is because users don't take the time to read the instructions presented to them in the request path.

It should be possible to turn off the edit request facility at articles where it isn't needed; i.e., articles that always have editors around. In such cases the edit request path could be replaced by instructions directing the user to the talk page (or saving them a step and presenting the same thing they would get by clicking "New section" at the talk page). ―Mandruss ☎ 22:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is already optional and editors do make requests in text only. The template makes it formal and encourages identifying the exact change, although often not used correctly. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The use is optional; the facility is not. Again in my experience, editors are spending too much time rejecting "invalid" edit requests (which also wastes the requester's time).

The facility summons an outside editor by placing the article in a maintenance category for that purpose. In my 10+ years at normal-activity articles, I've yet to see a request handled by such an outside editor. Rather, the request is invariably changed to answered=y by a "local" editor, removing the article from the category, before an outside editor arrives to handle it. So, for a normal-activity article, what's the point of the category or the facility? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not every request-reviewer is that lazy. Quite a bit will engage in discussion. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And they will do so improperly, all the more reason to turn off edit requests. The edit request instructions are quite clear: "What an edit request IS NOT for: [...] making a comment or starting a discussion: go to the talk page [...]". Again, if discussion is the goal, there is already a way to do that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. But should people new to a topic carry the burden of assessing whether a talk page is active? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the question. If you're referring to the requesters, they wouldn't have to make that assessment. It would have already been made by the article's editors (or not). For example, the editors at Donald Trump would turn off the edit request facility and any user clicking "View source" on the article page would be directed to the talk page (or, as I said, the box would be presented to start a discussion thread). More precisely, they would be presented the option to start a discussion thread, just as they're presented the option to submit an edit request today (big blue button).

And, again, if they don't seek discussion—if they have something clearly uncontroversial—a normal thread works equally well for that purpose. Heading: "Typo correction". Comment: "Please correct the spelling of 'envirmental' in the 'Climate change, environment, and energy' section. ~~~~". Done. The only material differences are (1) a more meaningful section heading, hopefully, (2) no need to change to answered=y, and (3) no maintenance category pointlessly involved. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then just add the edit notice for articles where all edits will be controversial. I don't see why we should remove the ER facility, which is still perfectly good for uncontroversial edits. I don't see why editors already being available is a problem. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: The facility summons an outside editor by placing the article in a maintenance category for that purpose. In my 10+ years at normal-activity articles, I've yet to see a request handled by such an outside editor. Can you please clarify what you mean by this. Many volunteers watch CAT:ESP and related pages and handle requests. RudolfRed (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RudolfRed: I'm sure they do, but I've never seen them handle one at an article that always has editors around to handle it. Not once in 10+ years. They simply can't get there fast enough, presumably because they are processing a FIFO queue containing a number of older requests. Even if they could, why bother them when they aren't needed? They have many requests to handle where they are needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of high traffic articles here. In my experience handling well over 10,000 edit requests and patrolling all of the edit request queues, edit requests are often ignored by the regulars on well attended talk pages, and edit request patrollers handle requests on those articles very often. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Then those articles would not turn off the edit request facility. Hence "optional". ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pages that are protected are normally of interest to many editors. So hopefully they are on watchlists. Also I expect that admins the protect, add the page to their watchlist so they can see any requests or edits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That reads like an argument for eliminating the edit request facility entirely, which would be a step too far in my opinion. It's certainly not an argument against making the facility optional at article level. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the argument is very wrong too. There are plenty of obscure protected pages. High-risk templates. MediaWiki-namespace pages. Gadgets like MediaWiki talk:Gadget-watchlist-notice-core.js, where even the edit request template itself has failed for two months. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I implemented this a while ago per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive334#Possible new tool/technique/procedureas{{Manual edit requests}}. It never got used then because the person who was advocating for it retired due to unrelated drama shortly after that discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see why editors being already available is a problem. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're choosing to frame this in a greatly oversimplified way that ignores points already made. I hate circular/repetitive discussion, and I suggest a re-read with more effort to see a different perspective. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. It's been said, not by me, that Idea Lab is where good ideas go to die. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that's true, I don't think the precondition is met for this one.

Suppressing the normal edit request mechanism IMO should only be done for pages where it makes it too easy for confused users to make completely misplaced edit requests (e.g. all the people who used to wind up at Template talk:Reflist trying to add references to some particular article, or Help talk:Edit summary trying to add a summary to their edit). If people are using it to make appropriate requests, even if malformed and even if the article always has editors around, then it's not a problem. Especially in the "always has editors around" case, those editors can handle it.

Above you complain about Rather, the request is invariably changed to answered=y by a "local" editor, removing the article from the category, before an outside editor arrives to handle it, which IMO is the mechanism working as intended: an editor answers the request and sets answered=y. Just because that happens to be an editor who'd have seen it anyway because they watch the page is not a "problem" that needs fixing. Anomie⚔ 11:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that, where there is no need to summon someone via the category, there is no need for the facility. That's it. In my nine years at the perpetually-protected Trump article, perhaps one in twenty edit requests have resulted in an edit to the article—and it could have been done using a normal thread. The other nineteen have been malformed, controversial, attempts to start discussion, or requests for permission to edit the article directly. That is a distracting waste of resources too easily avoided. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't understand your point. It's that I disagree that removing the edit request pre-fill would make things better, outside of your own personal annoyance at seeing the edit request template. You or other editors on the page are free to retitle sections and mark the "bad" request as answered when you answer them. Anomie⚔ 12:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you do misunderstand my point, unless you're saying that the distracting waste of resources is acceptable. If that's the case, I invite you to come spend a few weeks at the Trump article; might change your perspective. We have more important things to do, and not enough time to do them. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, it's not a good time for your visit. The article talk page has been temporarily semi-protected due to vandalism related to the conviction, and I think that's preventing edit requests. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't stand Trump. Anomie⚔ 00:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might be misunderstanding the proposal; currently I'm interpreting it as "disable the ability to create edit requests on controversial pages/pages with lots of watchers". If that's the case: last year, I made an edit request to the List of Conspiracy Theories article, which is unsurprisingly a controversial article and has over a thousand talk page watchers. By your criteria, I'm pretty sure edit requests would have been disabled. As it was, it took 23 days for anyone to bother to respond, during which time (if my memory's correct) it became the 12th-most-stale edit request on the entire site. ...had your proposal been in place, and had my request been forced to have been opened as a normal thread, it would have vanished into the void and would still be unanswered today. Because surprise surprise, the ultimate responder found it through the Edit Request Tool, not from watching the talk page. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:BC84:B937:5E69:2838 (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here)[reply]

That's the general gist I saw when I was I patrolled edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is to give an article's editors the power to turn off the edit request facility if they judge that it's doing more harm than good at that article. The test is not an arbitrary one based on # of watchers or anything else. Are you suggesting that decision would be made at List of conspiracy theories? Made on what basis?

Regardless, it's not like the decision is irreversible. If your normal thread sat unanswered for a long time, would that not be a clear reason to turn the facility back on? If your edit request went unanswered for 23 days, how is that an argument against this proposal? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just not seeing what it really does. The template attracts the patrollers. If they close an edit request it doesn't mean that the watchers of that particular article can't action or respond to the request in any way they see fit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I've failed to make the point about "distracting waste of resources", I guess there's nothing else I can say. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you call waste, we call extremely effective redundancy. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm misreading, but it is unclear what resources are being wasted (server kittens?) or that anyone is distracted. One of two things is true. Either the request is answered by someone who is patrolling the categories for edit requests, in which case the system functioned as expected. Or the request is answered by a talk page watcher, in which case the proposed change would make no difference except perhaps cosmetically due to a different template. I suppose there is the tiniest chance that a patroller inspects a request at the precise instant a talk page watcher answers it and edit conflicts, but the benefit of eliminating an extremely rare occurrence is more than outweighed by the extra complications entailed by the proposed change. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that new users would be able to know how to request turning the facility back on, nor if there were a facility because it was turned off. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our current Conflict of Interest guideline is 6000 words - or 0.2 tomats - long, and often ambiguous and confusing. To address this we have recently been discussing at WP:COI a replacement, and I'm opening a discussion here to get further input on it now that it has gone through a few rounds of revisions.

It is considerably shorter than the current guideline, at just 1000 words, and is intended to be clearer about what restrictions apply to which editors. The intention is that it would replace the current COI guideline; the current text would be moved to an explanatory supplement where it could be edited and pruned as appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any way to internationalise the bit under Significant roles? A "precinct captain for the Democratic Party" doesn't really map intuitively onto anything in my experience, and others may feel similarly. Folly Mox (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to think of a few as I didn't consider it ideal either, but I couldn't think of anything more recognizable. If you have any ideas I would be glad to change them. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am really not liking the direction this proposal is taking us. This focuses on the editor and not the edits.

Having a conflict of interest should NOT bar anyone from editing as long as their edits are in accordance with our content policies and guidelines. Even a paid editor is not problematic UNLESS they are editing in a way that is contrary to our p&g.

I agree that it IS all too easy to (even unintentionally) edit in a way that is contrary to p&g when you have a tie to the topic… and so I agree with requiring disclosure. After all, when you disclose, others can better guide you when you unintentionally edit in a problematic way. BUT… those with a conflict CAN edit properly with such guidance.

The flaw isn’t in having a conflict of interest… the flaw is in allowing that conflict to impact one’s editing. And THAT is resolved by addressing the edits, not the editor. Blueboar (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the flaw is in allowing the conflict to impact one's editing. However, I don't believe it's useful to focus on the edits within the conflict of interest guideline. All edits are held to the same standard: they are proper if they align with our content policies and guidelines, and improper if they don't.

Instead, we should recognize that editors with a conflict of interest can make significant positive contributions but also face an increased risk of making problematic edits - especially ones that are difficult to detect and address. Our goal should be to minimize this risk without hindering those positive contributions, and we can achieve this through two complementary processes: providing additional guidance to editors with a conflict of interest and subjecting their edits to greater scrutiny.

A conflict of interest guideline that focuses on the editor, promoting transparency and disclosure, supports these processes, and allows us to better manage the risk. BilledMammal (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blueboar, the only thing that matters is the edits. Everything that isn't directly supporting the inclusion of good edits and the exclusion of bad edits, regardless of source, is irrelevant. The significant majority of this proposal is focusing on completely the wrong thing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboar and @Thryduulf, can't the same thing be said about the existing COI guideline? Is this really "taking us" somewhere new, or is it "keeping us exactly where we have been since 2012"?

Related to the comment from @Curbon7, I think the most recent major change was when Gigs and SlimVirgin largely re-wrote COI in 2012. If memory serves, the goal was to make COI focus on the editor instead of the edit, because real-world definitions (e.g., for corporate board malfeasance) focus on the individual actors instead of the actions. For example, if a non-profit board member owns an office building, and offers to rent badly needed office space to the non-profit at a massive discount, he can theoretically get in COI trouble for voting to accept his offer, even if that's clearly the best possible thing for the organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's COI policies don't ban those with a COI from editing. However, they do require you to:

1. Disclose that COI
2. Keep any bias in check
3. Involve other editors to verify all edits are unbiased
4. Avoid letting your voice "dominate" any articles on the topic.

The editor matters because we don't have perfect information. If a rando gives a citation for "Bob the scientist says X", it's reasonable to include this in an article, and I won't give it much thought. However, it's possible Bob's view falls outside the mainstream; to determine that, I'd need to learn all about X. I can't do this for every possible X, so I take a shortcut: if a COI editor who would benefit from X writes this edit, I make sure to be extra-careful when reviewing the edit. –Sincerely, A Lime 20:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think rather than re-writing the guidelines entirely it may be more wise to trim the guideline section-by-section. I'm not sure many editors have an appetite for a ground-up re-structuring which to some may seem to be the addition of new guidelines and removal of existing one; the issue with huge proposals like this is the risk of a controversial change in one spot derailing the entire thing. Curbon7 (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As a matter of practical politics, you're probably right. I don't remember a wholesale re-write ever being adopted in one go, though we have (10+ years ago) made really substantial changes to some policies through a series of edits. But it's also helpful to look at the potential goal. If it's going entirely the wrong way, then we might not want to propose any of the changes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think an attempt at a ground-up restructuring is worth attempting; a lot of the changes only make sense in context, and I feel trying to run a dozen RfC's will quickly fatigue the community. BilledMammal (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth the effort; there are many problems caused by the current guideline. North8000 (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here to solicit opinions about what it means for an article to be "ready for the mainspace". This phrase has turned up in hundreds of AFDs during recent years. Here's the story:

You are looking at an article. You have determined that the subject is notable, and that none of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion apply to the article. Another editor says to you: "I don't think that article is ready for the mainspace".

What would you guess that the editor means? Is that consistent with our rules, such as the WP:NEXIST guideline or the WP:IMPERFECT policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, and this is just my own opinion here, I find this "ready for the mainspace" thing a little ambiguous. As you said, as long as WP:GNG is met, an article that is properly sourced (or at least whose topic does) deserves to be in the mainspace. Not all articles are perfect, and by having an article in the mainspace, more people will see it and improve it, which is exactly the purpose of Wikipedia. It's a work in progress!Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a little ambiguous, too, which is why I'm asking. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, WP:DRAFTIFY clearly states that the aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace, so maybe a change to that guideline could be required to make it clearer? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we can figure out what it means, that might be helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would generally interpret it as "WP:N has not been shown." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then what about you have determined that the subject is notable per @WhatamIdoing's original comment? Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 20:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I couldn't see for myself why the other editor would say that, I'd ask. For myself, I could see saying "not ready for mainspace" for something so poorly or inappropriately written that it does a disservice to the topic and the reader (although I'd probably say specifically what my concern was). Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Drafts#During new page review says that it's enough that the topic is plausibly notable to draftify. An unsourced article with a claim of significance (or notability) could fit this description, not being eligible for WP:A7 but still not meeting the referencing standards for mainspace. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, if the article draft meets all of the following it's ready for mainspace:

• Is not being discussed at XfD
• Would not meet a speedy deletion criterion in article space
• Has no identified copyright, BLP, etc issues
• Has sufficient sources to demonstrate notability
• Has been at least minimally proof-read (perfection is not required, basic readability is).
• Has no in-line editing notes ("need to reword this", "add more info here", etc) (excluding templates and hidden comments).
• Has no obviously broken templates (if you don't know how to fix it, ask for help before moving). Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC) ("article" changed to "draft" for clarity Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I'm not sure why you're asking in this venue. The only way to know is to ask the editor making the statement what they meant. Even if it could be done, I don't think it will be helpful to try to establish a common interpretation. Editors should be specific about their concerns. isaacl (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to ask hundreds of editors. Also, if everyone has their own ideas, then the phrase becomes useless. We might as well just say WP:IDONTLIKEIT in that case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is useless on its own, as it's not specific. It sounds more like you want to revisit the criteria for deleting an article, to examine what should be considered showstopping shortcomings. Commenters in deletion discussions should be encouraged to list those shortcomings. They can optionally add that as a result, the article isn't ready for the mainspace. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to revisit the criteria for deleting an article. Also, if you take a look, this phrase frequently is given as a reason for not deleting the articles (but instead moving them to Draft: or User: space).

Consider Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion of drafts: "If an article isn't ready for the main namespace, it can be moved to the draft namespace". Commenters in deletion discussions can listed specific shortcomings, but the deletion policy itself can't. Is this a matter of pure consensus, in which case it's nearly indistinguishable from IDONTLIKEIT (which sounds worse than it probably would be in practice)? Does it mean, e.g., what @Thryduulf said about "Has sufficient sources to demonstrate notability", in which case WP:NEXIST is no longer valid? Would a visibly broken template count as the sort of IMPERFECT thing that the deletion policy won't countenance? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, my criteria are for moving a page from draft space to article space, not for moving a page in the other direction (where such issues as broken templates should simply be fixed). Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't avoid deletion to be moved to draftspace simply because they're not ready for mainspace by someone's measure, but because someone thinks there's promise to demonstrate that the topic meets English Wikipedia's standard for having an article. There's no point in trying to retroactively figure out what others have meant by a non-specific phrase they used in the past. Moving forward, users should be asked to provide specific details, assuming that it's not already clear from context what shortcomings are being considered.

Regarding the quote from the deletion policy, I agree that ideally it wouldn't use a vague phrase. I appreciate, though, that the sentence is trying to be a placeholder to cover any scenario where the participants in a deletion discussion agreed that the best course of action was to move the article to the draft namespace. It's essentially tautological. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it means "by consensus at AFD", then it should say that. We could change the deletion policy to say that.

In re no point in trying to retroactively figure out what others have meant by a non-specific phrase they used in the past, I don't agree. This phrase seems to mean something to people. You are the only editor who thinks that understanding what we want to communicate (in about a thousand AFDs, in the deletion policy, twice in Wikipedia:Drafts, in more than forty thousand pages all told). When a bit of wiki-jargon has been used tens of thousands(!) of times, I don't think that figuring out what we mean, and whether we all mean the same thing, is pointless. If it doesn't interest you, then that's fine, but please don't tell other editors that what they've been saying is meaningless.

Also, I suspect that in a substantial fraction of cases, "not ready for mainspace by someone's personal standards" is exactly what is meant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I mean from my view, there's no point in trying to guess at the meaning in a village pump thread. If we're serious about trying to figure it out, we should be systematic: take a sampling and ask the editors in question if they're still around. We can also analyze the discussion threads to see if there is enough context to understand. isaacl (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This phrase is used in WP:DELPOL and WP:DRAFTIFY. The village pump is the normal place to discuss confusion that affects multiple policy/guideline/help/etc. pages.

But I'm no longer hopeful that we can have that discussion. If you look at this thread, five editors thought they had something useful to contribute. Then you started posting that you thought it was not helpful to figure out what editors mean, that it's useless, that there's no point – and nobody else has shared their thoughts since. I think you have effectively discouraged editors from sharing their their views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing that it means to me is that most claims in the article are sourced, and that they're sourced to enough separate reliable sources to establish notability by just reading the references. Many topics are notable in the sense that sources exist out there somewhere, but implicit in the notability guideline is that the reason we're looking to establish there exist such-and-such many reliable sources about a topic is to use those sources to write the article. Any article that does not actually do this is half-baked. Loki (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar, how many existing articles do you think meet the standard of "most claims in the article are sourced"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that there's lots of bad articles out there, if that's what you're asking. I'd still say that the majority of articles meet that standard, and that the overwhelming majority of traffic to Wikipedia is to articles that meet that standard.

Like, compare naked butler, which doesn't meet the standard I've set here, to complaint tablet to Ea-nasir, which does. They're both small articles on obscure subjects but the complaint tablet one is totally fine. Loki (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the complaint tablet has about five times as many sentences as the median article and about ten times as many sources. So if that's the standard, we'd probably be deleting about 90% of current articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way: The median article is a stub. You have given a C-class article as an example that should be considered a "small article". A quick look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Statistics suggests that my off-the-cuff 90% estimate is correct. Only about 10% of articles (excluding lists, dab pages, etc.) rate as C-class or higher. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stub class articles don't necessarily violate this standard. So for instance, I just found a list of stubs and clicked randomly and found Ty Barnett, which clearly meets my standard. Or have Fred BaxterorWilliam Beavers, literally the next two articles I clicked on. All stubs of obscure people, all definitely meet the standard I laid out. Loki (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ORES says the first is Start-class. I think editors might have different opinions about whether it's a long stub vs a short Start, but at 200 words/10 sentences long, it is at minimum on the long side for a stub.
• The second is a four-sentence, four-source stub, which might put it around the median article for length, but I think it is above average for sourcing.
• The third is also Start-class. It has 2750 bytes of readable prose and 450 words. This is about twice the length of the maximum described in Wikipedia:Stub#How big is too big? The stub tag was removed from the article during an expansion in 2006. I have corrected the WP:1.0 rating on its talk page.

Looking at Fred Baxter (the second one), would you feel the same way if it had only three sentences and three sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I don't care about length at all. Loki (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in the number of sources, or the percentage of sentences with inline citations? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of sources only has to be enough to meet the notability guideline. Otherwise it's fraction of claims that need to be sourced that aren't. Loki (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST says that the number of citations required to meet the notability guideline is zero. (Per that long-standing guideline, the sources have to exist in the real world, but they don't have to be cited in the article.) There are no claims in User:WhatamIdoing/Christmas candy that need to be sourced (nothing about BLPs, nothing WP:LIKELY, etc.). Is that "ready for the mainspace" in your opinion? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that article isn't 'ready for mainspace' because it is unreferenced. Cremastra (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that the notability guideline itself says that the sources just have to exist somewhere, and not be actually present in the article. However, it's pretty clear that the reason the notability guideline says the sources have to exist somewhere is so they can be used to write the article.

My big problem with the example article you linked is that it's not clear that "Christmas candy" is a notable subject separate from specific types of Christmas candy. I also think some of the list of examples is more WP:LIKELY to be challenged than you think. I think that for instance someone who did not know what a szaloncukor was is very likely to start out doubtful that it is Christmas candy. Loki (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think I needed to consult sources to write that "Christmas candyiscandy associated with the Christmas holiday season. Candy canes are one type of Christmas candy"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but someone who doesn't celebrate Christmas and has lived in a Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim-majority country all their life might need to. WP:V still stands, whether you like or not. Cremastra (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V says that it must be possible to find sources (e.g., at a library). It does not say that sources must be cited in the article, except four types of material, none of which are in this article. WP:V is not violated by having those two sentences uncited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess the editor means:

• The article is completely unreferenced, and/or many of the claims are factually dubious
• The article is written in English, but is barely coherent. It can be understood, so isn't gibberish, but is an embarrassment and not very helpful.
• The article is blatantly and overtly promotional

Cremastra (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could also interpret "not ready for mainspace" to include glaring MOS or technical issues, like:

• templates outputting nothing but error messages
• external links peppering article prose
• infobox with default values for parameters
• entirely empty sections
• no subheadings whatsoever, just a giant chunk of text
• unintentional blockquotes from starting a paragraph with whitespace
• other Wikipedia pages incorrectly formatted as references instead of internal links
• etc

Folly Mox (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, to emphasize the obvious, "ready for mainspace" is a vague subjective term. Probably the only more objective term that could fall under that is "allowed to exist in mainspace" and the most universal standard for that is "likely to survive a reasonably well run AFD". And for an article (NOT article content) NPP and AFC passage ostensibly follow that. Which in turn (presuming no eggregious speedy or wp:not violations) the main criteria ends up being passing wp:notability. Many people (e.g. at AFC, during mentoring, and in this thread) set a higher standard for "ready for mainspace" which is that the content of the article and the article does not have any significant problems or shortcomings. Yes, this is a double standard, and can make AFC a somewhat rough and arbitrary path. But we need to recognize that it is only human by the person reviewing it. If somebody took an article to you that was allowed to exist in mainspace (usually a wp:notability decision on the topic) but which was in really bad or undeveloped shape, would you be willing to bless putting it into mainspace? Most people would want it to meet a higher quality standard before they would personally say "ready for mainspace". North8000 (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If I'm not mistaken the "not ready for mainspace" phrase originated in WP:DRAFTIFY and has since leaked into deletion discussions. As everyone here seems to agree, it is very poorly defined phrase and, far from the low bars proposed above, I've seen new page and AfC reviewers invoke it for things like a draft not being long enough or using plain text references instead of {{cite}} templates. Rather than trying to define it, I think we should purge it from guidelines and templates in favour of listing specific problems in an understandable way. – Joe (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Rather than trying to define it, I think we should purge it from guidelines and templates in favour of listing specific problems in an understandable way. I agree with this. U ideally we would not move something out of mainspace or disallow moving it into mainspace unless there are problems that are all of specifically identified, actionable, adversely detrimental* and not trivially fixable (anything that is trivially fixable should just be fixed). *"adversely detrimental" means things like failed verification or no evidence of notability, not merely lacking inline sources, cite templates or being "too short". Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose we could try to re-define it as "does not qualify for deletion" (either CSD or AFD), but (a) it'd take a couple years for the usage to shift and (b) there is a strong demand from a minority of the community to have ways to get rid of "ugly" (i.e., short) articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Following up on what @Joe Roe said about DRAFTIFY, I find this in that page:

  2a. The page is obviously unready for mainspace, for example:

  2a-i. is not a reasonable WP:STUB (e.g. has very little verifiable information, or is interchangeable with a short dictionary entry, but the definition is not good);

  2a-ii. or it would have very little chance of survival at AfD;

  2a-iii. or it meets any speedy deletion criterion.

  This was introducedbySmokeyJoe as a result of his proposal at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Archive 5#Clarification and guidance for draftification. (The original proposal was that "unready for mainspace" mean "It does not meet WP:STUB.")

  This suggests that the definition of "not ready for the mainspace" is:

  • a very short stub, containing either a bad dictionary definition or very little information in general;
  • the article is not ready because the subject is non-notable; or
  • the article qualifies for speedy deletion.

  Based on this, I suspect that the definition could be reduced to "contains less than about 20 words of encyclopedic content", because a look at Wiktionary suggests that the mode for dictionary definition length is a mere four words, and 20 words would give you one long sentence or several shorter ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A stub should be defined at WP:STUB, not at WP:Drafts.

  A stub is a very short article that is accepted in mainspace, despite not meeting other inclusion guildelines. They seem to be inherently acceptable topics, like natural species, capable of expansion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Per WP:STUB, a stub is any short article. Generally, it is taken to be less than about 250 words/10 sentences. There are no minimum requirements in WP:STUB. Cancer is a disease – a mere four words with no sources and no other content – would be a valid stub per WP:STUB.

  WP:IDEALSTUB (perhaps that's what you had in mind?) recommends adding "enough information for other editors to expand upon it" and to avoid a {{db-nocontext}} deletion. Cancer is a disease is realistically enough to fulfill that recommendation.

  IDEALSTUB also recommends that you "try to expand upon this basic definition", so we could add something like Sometimes people die from itorIt is mostly treated with surgery or drugs.

  Finally, IDEALSTUB recommends citing a source (though our policies only require this for BLPs, not for articles about diseases), so we could add a link to https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/ or some similar website.

  I don't know what you mean by "despite not meeting other inclusion guildelines". The inclusion guidelines are at Wikipedia:Notability and its friends, and none of them require any length or particular content in the articles. Cancer is a disease, unsourced, with nothing else, meets the inclusion guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You’re referring to the sourcing requirement speaking to sources that exist, not sources currently listed. Ok, yes you are right. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe, I wonder whether this list of "three" items could be shortened to two:

  • The subject is non-notable (in which case, you should usually send it to AFD instead of Draft:)
  • The article qualifies for speedy deletion (on any grounds, but particularly for {{db-nocontext}}).

  The example of "has very little verifiable information, or is interchangeable with a short dictionary entry, but the definition is not good)" is redundant with {{db-nocontext}}. But perhaps there is a different example of "not a reasonable WP:STUB" that should be retained? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Three is a pleasing number.

  Lists of two encourage binary thinking. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, a great many things could be.

  I wonder whether it’s actually not a good thing to attempt to tidy up definitions of edge cases. Edge cases are messy, subjective, and cause emotional disputes. Mistakenly precise language can make this worse, setting up a conflict between rules oriented wikilawyers and new content creatives.

  Where are the actual problems that you are trying to solve? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem I need to solve is: People use the same words to mean different things, which results in (preventable) confusion.

  The problem I want to solve is: People have significantly different ideas of what the minimum acceptable amount/type of content for an article is, which results in some preventable disputes (and some non-preventable disputes).

  For example, one editor looks at an article and says "Wow, ten sentences, nicely written, I understand what the subject is, and it's even kind of a cool subject. It's WP:NOTFINISHED, but readers will be happy if they run across it, especially if they only need basic information (which is usually the case)."

  Another editor looks at the same article and says "It's soooo embarrassing! WP:ITSUNREFERENCED so the whole thing might be made-up nonsense, and readers hate uncited articles. There's been WP:NOEFFORT to improve it. WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, and we do need to hide that WP:Garbage to protect our reputation. There's no chance of it getting deleted at AFD, but it's obviously not ready for the mainspace!"

  Some divergence is a desirable thing, but there's very little overlap between those two positions. If we're going to function well, we need to have most of us mostly agree on what the minimum requirements are for something being "ready for the mainspace".

  If "ready for the mainspace" is even a soft requirement, then we need to have a shared understanding of what that means, and it needs to be the same for both going into and getting back out of the Draft: space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WAID that there is a real problem here. If you read the subpoints of WP:DRAFTIFY#During new page review, then it's clear that obviously unready for mainspace is intended to refer to a fairly narrow set of seriously problematic articles: something less than a stub, deletion almost certain, etc. But divorced from that context, "not ready for mainspace" admits a much wider range of understandings, as we've seen above. For example, the draftify script leaves the canned edit summary Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace followed by a selection of prespecified reasons why the article is not ready, which include things like it needs more sources to establish notability and it has too many problems of language or grammar – a far cry from very little chance of survival at AfD. A similar message is given to the creator the explain what happened to the article. If you look at the logs, the vast majority of moves to draft use one of these canned reasons: people take their cues on what they should and shouldn't do from the UI in front of them, not the guideline. Taken out of the guideline and into scripts and other pages, the phrase "not ready for mainspace" itself has taken on a life of its own and is used to systematically circumvent the deletion policy on a daily basis. – Joe (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these draftifiers? Are they sufficiently qualified/experienced? My biggest concern about NPR approvals was insufficient expectation of experience at AfD, draftifiers are t performing AfD-like decisions, but unilaterally.

The wording of the script, was there any discussion or consensus behind it.

“Not ready for mainspace”. They are very simple word. I think it might be worth an essay, WP:Not ready for mainspace.

While trying not to embarrass individuals, is it possible to show me a list of bad draftifications? SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know where to start. I've been reviewing draftifications through WP:PERM/NPP requests, CSD R2 nominations and from the logs for years now and I'd say I come across an egregious example just about every time I look. To be clear, by 'bad', I mean something that clearly exceeds the boundaries set by WP:DRAFTIFY and/or what I understand community expectations to be, not my own. I don't want to unfairly single anyone out, but you could check my contributions to the draft namespace for a representative sample. – Joe (talk) 13:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egregious?

Some brainstorming questions, not having looked at your contribution history yet:

Are reviewers systematically applying a higher standard to new articles than would be applied at AfD? I’ve seen that AfC reviewers do this. Could this be explained by an increased expectation of article standard, and AfD voting lagging this change? I know that some people complain about how hard it is to get article deleted at AfD.

Are bad draftifications being done by editors who are not NPRs? And are they doing bad things randomly?

Is there any sense that draftifications are being done to endorse a reviewers POV bias on what content should be in Wikipedia?

Is the problem with this page’s asserted boundaries, or with poor training of NPReviewers? Or with bias from the draftification script(s) due to them proving an easily option for difficult cases? I don’t think that anything in the fairly heavy NPR and AfC training pages instructions to read WP:Drafts. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egregious meaning systematic enough that I feel I have to discuss it with the user and, if they don't stop, pull their NPR right. I think the rest of your questions are good ones and, although I give my anecdotal conclusion on them, I don't have any data to hand (and unfortunately I don't think anyone does, which is why this issue has been festering for years now). I do think the lack of clarity in the phrase "not ready for mainspace"—taken out of context, as discussed above—has contributed to the problem and that's why I think WAID's original question (what is ready for mainspace?) is a good one.

To suggest a concrete next step, there is a list of specific, consensus-backed things that make a page "not ready for mainspace" at WP:DRAFTYES. We could brainstorm what could be added to those, and/or consider making a separate list of things that don't disqualify a page from mainspace. – Joe (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My impression:

• Are reviewers systematically applying a higher standard to new articles than would be applied at AfD? – Yes. And it's not just one "rogue" editor; it's anyone who doesn't want to be seen "endorsing" or "accepting" an WP:UGLY article. You have to be willing to expend a lot of social capital to follow the written rules. This is one reason I recently suggested a "three strikes and you're out" approach to AFC: On the third time AFC rejects a submission, a bot should do a procedural nomination at AFD. There is no more reliable method of figuring out whether it will be kept at AFD than to send it to AFD.
• Could this be explained by an increased expectation of article standard, and AfD voting lagging this change? – Yes, but I don't think that "increased" is the right word. AFD still operates on the written rules (e.g., sources must WP:NEXIST in the real world, but don't have to be cited in the article). NPP and AFC functionally reject this rule and want notability "demonstrated".
• Are bad draftifications being done by editors who are not NPRs? And are they doing bad things randomly? – Yes, overly aggressive draftifications sometimes are done by anyone who believes they are defending Wikipedia against ugly articles, but it's not really random. It is an effort to "raise Wikipedia's quality" by forcing other editors to choose between improving the article or having it hidden from readers.
• Is there any sense that draftifications are being done to endorse a reviewers POV bias on what content should be in Wikipedia? – I have not seen evidence of, e.g., editors draftifying articles related to geopolitical disputes. There have been times in which we see editors draftifying articles about, e.g., Bollywood actors or African politicians. This could be due to cultural differences (the normal, everyday ways of describing powerful people in some cultures looks like "pure promotional garbage!" in others) and is probably often due to WP:NEVERHEARDOFIT (with that bias applying both the subject and to the newspapers/standard sources in that country).
• Is the problem with this page’s asserted boundaries, or with poor training of NPReviewers? Or with bias from the draftification script(s) due to them proving an easily option for difficult cases? – I don't think that training is the problem, because part of Wikipedia's notion of "training" is to watch what others are doing and follow their lead. The problem that I want to deal with is the problem of nobody knowing/agreeing on what those words mean. If we agree that ugly articles should be accepted, then the script should reinforce that. If we agree that ugly articles should be hidden, then the script should reinforce that (and WP:UGLY should be updated to say that ugly articles can be hidden in draftspace).

Joe, I like your idea of having "a separate list of things that don't disqualify a page from mainspace". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:WhatamIdoing, User:Joe Roe, how about “isn’t acceptable in mainspace”? Eg1. Eg2. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If two people argue about whether something is ready, it does seem to be a horribly subjective argument over an undefined and unimportant threshold.

  If two people argue about whether something is acceptable, one can say “it is acceptable because I accept it” and the other can say “it is not acceptable because I am not accepting it”. It goes to AfD where the decision will be made, deleted or pseudodeleted, or kept in mainspace, proving one of the two to be right. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If two uninvolved editors disagree in good faith about whether something is or isn't ready for mainspace, I think it should be declared ready and moved to mainspace but explicitly without prejudice to AfD (obviously nothing is immune from AfD, but it should be made explicit so the psychological bar to nomination is lower). Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If two uninvolved editors disagree in good faith about whether something is or isn't acceptable for mainspace, I think it should be declared acceptable and moved to mainspace but explicitly without prejudice to AfD (obviously nothing is immune from AfD, but it should be made explicit so the psychological bar to nomination is lower). SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think any new wording is worth a try but I'm not sure that it is sufficiently different from "ready for mainspace" to make a difference. We don't generally encounter problems when editors disagree about drafts, because the obvious course of action then is to discuss it at AfD. The problem is that the vast majority of articles moved to draftspace are only seen by two people: the creator, and the reviewer who draftifies it. Reviewers shouldn't, but unfortunately often do (not least through the wording of the automated script), imply that their 'decision' on an article is uncontestable. Even if they don't, creators, especially inexperienced ones, are often ignorant of the fact that they don't have to go along with what the reviewer says. So unless a third party happens to come across the draft, we don't get disagreement, just a creator trying to meet whatever arbitrary standard a particular reviewer has decided is required for mainspace, or just concluding that their contribution has been rejected and giving up. This is incidentally the precise opposite of what WP:DRAFTIFY and most frequent draftifiers say they want to achieve: to "allow time and space for the draft's improvement". – Joe (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that “acceptable” is better defined, via tautology with hindsight, than “not ready”. On reflection, I think “not ready” is suggestive that it is ok to Draftify a topic that is undoubtedly suitable, cf meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies and extreme Immediatism.

  I think that draftification should include a mandatory link to WP:DRAFTOBJECT, both in the edit summary / move log entry, and in the message posted to the author. I agree with you concern about content creators not knowing all of the rules. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that wording helps much. For one thing, it implies that there is a consensus that some articles are "unacceptable", but gives nobody any idea what is "acceptable" and what is "unacceptable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Acceptable means it survives AfD. Unacceptable means it doesn’t survive AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So in the deletion policy, you wrote "If an article isn't acceptable in mainspace, it can be moved to the draft namespace" but what you mean is "If a subject isn't notable, it can be moved to the draft namespace"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’ve been trying to remember what I meant seven years ago with “ready for mainspace”. One thing that comes up was that reviewers were expecting citations in a BLP to be “inline”. I think I was attempting to not engage with dubious reasons reviewers were using. This was then quite a new backwater page. I am disturbed to discover my verbiage to have been copied into deletion policy and to have become common phraseology at AfD.

  WP:Drafts is not supposed to rewrite WP:N. Pages that pass WP:N are sometimes deleted. Pages that fail WP:N are sometimes kept.

  When a reviewer moves a page to draftspace, the reviewer should be justifying their action, not quoting generic statements. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the wording should be more direct regarding expectations. Taking some text from Wikipedia:Deletion policy § Incubation, it could be something like "If a recently created article shows potential but needs additional development to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article, it can be moved to the draft namespace." isaacl (talk) 15:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the rule you have in mind that the subject must not only be notable (e.g., NEXIST) but also demonstrate notability (e.g., cite multiple sources)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whatever is necessary to convince a consensus of editors that the subject meets English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. This doesn't necessarily require citing multiple sources appropriate for demonstrating that the standards have been met, though that would be an easier route. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Does the English Wikipedia have any standards other than WP:N for having an article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Having an article, no. Having this article, yes - e.g. WP:V, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOTENGLISH, WP:BLP, WP:G10, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:V is not in the business of deciding whether we should have an article, in any mainspace. It's about which discrete bits of material require inline citations. Uncited material (WP:ITSUNREFERENCED) is not grounds for deletion under WP:V.

  If the article violates BLP, then it can't be moved to the Draft: space, either, because BLP applies to all namespaces. Ditto for COPYVIO and G10, which are reasons for immediate deletion and apply to all namespaces.

  NOTENGLISH has a two-week timer for deletion. It also says "Please keep in mind that drafts are out of scope for this page." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You are missing the distinction between whether there should be an article about a topic, and whether any given individual content written about that topic is appropriate. For example, Australia is a notable topic about which we should have an article, but an article reading "Australia is land of criminals and man-eating spiders that is permanently on fire. Citation: My ex-girlfriend" should not be in mainspace. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty sure that the hypothetical Australia example would qualify for Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Possibly (it's definitely not a hoax, vandalism is debatable. Unarguably it would fail WP:V) however these are all matters that have absolutely nothing to do with notability and are relevant to whether a page should or should not be in the mainspace. Thryduulf (talk) 01:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Prcicely right. There are a lot of topics that pass GNG or ann SNG, and thus deserve to have AN article. But, that does not mean any specific attempt at creating that article is acceptable. That attempt may have serious issues with other policies and guidelines, and need a complete rewrite. Draftspace is a temporary holding pen where that rewrite can take place. Blueboar (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, as you are aware, there are other considerations than those explicitly listed at Wikipedia:Notability. That page does link in its introduction to one of the other key guidance pages to consider, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I didn't get into it as I find it hard to discuss the entirety of Wikipedia guidance related to having an article at once, and so I linked to the most commonly referenced guidance page in this area. (It wasn't a final proposal for a different wording, just a starting point.) I appreciate you like to use Socratic questioning, but it feels like you're trying to elicit a response that you can counter with your knowledge of current guidance, rather than bringing up additional guidance to consider.. isaacl (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps some of the confusion here stems from the fact that deletion is based purely on notability, while draftification can be based on other criteria. Yet, “not ready for Mainspace” gets invoked in edit summaries as an “explanation” for both actions. Blueboar (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, plus there seems to be no agreement about what the "other criteria" are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:WhatamIdoing, I’ve noticed that “unsourced” is a reason. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "unsourced" claims are probably in WP:PGCONFLICT with WP:NEXIST.

  I wonder whether the typical claim is actually "unsourced" (e.g., if it were a BLP, it'd qualify for WP:BLPPROD) or if the claim is closer to "does not contain a sufficient volume of sources that, in my opinion, clearly demonstrate notability". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My opinion is that in new page review, if the page is unsourced, the reviewer should make some attempt to find sources, and if they fail to find sources, they should PROD the article (or BLPPROD) noting that they cannot find evidence of sources, and they should not Draftify, becuase unsourced content is dubious content that should be considered junk.

  At AfC, submitted drafts are routinely declined as unsourced. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you really believe that "unsourced content is dubious content that should be considered junk"? If someone starts an article on French Renaissance gardens, and it says "French Renaissance gardens were the style of gardens in France during the Renaissance", do you actually think that's worth a {{dubious}} tag? Is it WP:JUNK?

  I can imagine it being irritating for those few people who want a Wikipedia:Four Award, but that article wouldn't violate a single policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  User:WhatamIdoing, I wrote with a few unstated assumptions. I’m assuming a new article, it is completely unsourced, no external links, a single author who is no longer active, and a new page patrollers has tried to find sources, at least by google search. The content is unverified and possibly unverifiable.

  French Renaissance gardens is the sort of article I’m imagining. Doubtless it exists, there were gardens in France during the renaissance, and it seems likely that they had a unique style. The information in the page may be true, but may just as likely be made up, embellished, oversimplified, etc. I consider this dangerous, through the process of citogenesis. Is the risk managed by draftififcation? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If I found a new article or draft “French Renaissance gardens” containing unverifiable content, I would redirect it to Gardens of the French Renaissance. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Template:Dubious would be not applicable. That template refers to “a specific statement or alleged fact that is sourced but that nevertheless seems dubious or unlikely. The unsourced article more likely contains BLUESKY plausible stuff.

  The WP:JUNK essay is about notability. I am talking about pages that are unverifiable. I don’t agree with that essay defining junk as stuff that fails Wikipedia-Notability. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If it's actually unverifiable (which, as you can see from the books cited in Gardens of the French Renaissance, this is definitely not unverifiable), then the material would have to be removed. All material must be verifiable – that means that it must be possible for someone to check whether a reliable source says the same thing, with "possible" defined as including actions such as "getting help from a reference librarian at your own library" or "finding sources through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library" – though a sentence such as the one I gave does not require an inline citation according to WP:V. For WP:V purposes, it does not require a source even if it is the only sentence in the entire article.

  It is not my experience that uncited content is "just as likely be made up, embellished, oversimplified". About half of all sentences in the English Wikipedia are uncited; in my experience, it is not true that half of them (representing a quarter of our content) is made up, embellished, oversimplified, etc. I generally find that only a small proportion of our uncited content is wrong. My impression is that the proportion of wrong-and-uncited content is not as different from the proportion of wrong-and-cited content as one might wish.

  I have given you an example of a definitely verifiable (though presently uncited) sentence about a definitely notable subject. Do we agree that "unsourced content" is not necessarily "dubious content that should be considered junk"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We agree, "unsourced content" is not necessarily "dubious content that should be considered junk". SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Another reason if seen for non notability reasons to Draftify is “COI”. Including “suspected COI”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  COI has no effect on non-notability. If it's non-notable, it should go to AFD, regardless of whether COI is suspected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contemplation of a Proposal: Mandate edit summary linking to WP:DRAFTOBJECT in every unilateral draftification

Proposal: Mandate edit summary linking to WP:DRAFTOBJECT in every unilateral draftification.

The more I think on this years old idea the more I think it should be done. In practical terms, it is a simple thing to write into draftification scripts. For manual draftifications, these draftifiers are probably not experience and the rule is even more important. For consensus based draftifications, via AfD or informal discussion, they should link the discussion.

I suspect the rule should also strongly encourage including WP:DRAFTOBJECT in the usertalk explanation (automatic by the scripts), but not mandated due to occasional complications such as the first page author being an IP or banned user. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could realistically make this happen in the scripts, but not in manual edit summaries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but but would it be a good idea, to make it happen in the scripts, and to encourage it in manual edit summaries? It seems to me to be an easy fix to some of the problems you’ve noted (eg newcomers being intimidated). Would it have downsides? It would not fix everything. Would you support this proposal? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place for proposals, and I would oppose it anyway, as mandating a link to an essay is a bad idea, as it gives the impression that DRAFTOBJECT is a policy without going through the policy validation process. E.g. the "you can't draftify again" part is being misused by some people to object to redraftification a priori, pretending that it isn't allowed. Often the same people who then object to an AfD because AfD is not cleanup, leaving not much room for other options to deal with very poor articles which, yes, aren't ready for the mainspace. Yes, the drafter could in theory do a complete cleanup of the article, providing coherent prose, sources, ... for a subject they know nothing about, where the sources are in a language they don't speak. Realistically speaking though, the best solution is to move the page to draft again and again until the creator or someone else with the time and knowledge to deal with it turns it into an acceptable article. Fram (talk) 10:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HiFram.

Wrong place? Yes, I know, actually I meant it as contemplation for formally proposing this. I have learned to not propose something without at least one person agreeing with me. If supported, I would start a new page tagged {{Proposal}}. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFTOBJECT *is*, already, pseudopolicy, and the proposal would be defacto ratification.

Redraftification, excepting for WP:COI, is not allowed. It is move warring. Two people disagreeing should not move war, but should discuss, and the perfect forum is AfD.

AfD is not cleanup? No, it is not. Neither is draftification. Draftification is not for cleanup.

What do you mean by a very poor article that is not “ready for mainspace”, to ask the central question of this thread?

If there is any disagreement, it should go to AfD. I firmly disagree with you if you if you think it is ok for one editor to have the authority over another to send their work to draftspace until it meets the first editors undefined standard. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Pseudopolicy" doesn't exist. Draftofject isn't only about "one editor to have the authority over another to send their work to draftspace until it meets the first editors undefined standard.", it also means that a second editor may not send a page back to draftspace. And the essay gives the right to "one editor to have the authority over other editors to send their own work to main space", no matter how poor. I see no problem with this nor a reason to burden AfD with it. I moved Draft:2025 Rugby Europe Championship to draft twice because it had no sources about the topic but about different topics, but if it could be sourced to good sources it would be a notable subject. An article with such poor sourcing is "not ready for the mainspace". Jesus Calls was draftified, recreated, speedy deleted, and then recreated as Jesus calls. I draftified that one, is that a redractification? And if so, is it for some reason problematic? I redraftified Air 1 (airline) (another editor did the original draftification), why not? Same for Mangkunegara III.

As for "not ready for mainspace", things like Draft:Sahajanya (unsourced microstub), Draft:Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), Uttar Pradesh and Draft:Azad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram), Madhya Pradesh (barely above speedy deletion), Draft:2025 in Belgium (explanation for the "not ready" statement: "So far, this contains 1 sure event only, plus speculative claims about who will be PM, links to unrelated articles, and the holidays for 2024."), Draft:San Sanana (not ready as in "No evidence of notability at the moment, chart performance section is not for this song" but being an Indian song not easy for me or many others to check for actual notability), ... Fram (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Draft:2025 in Belgium as the example: Why did you decide that we shouldn't have that page in the mainspace?

There is no question about the notability. It would easily pass AFD, and AFC's mandate is to accept pages that will pass AFD. If Thief-River-Faller submits it to AFC, they ought to accept it immediately (assuming they follow their own rules, about which there has been some doubt).

It would also be more likely to get corrected if it were in the mainspace. So why hide it in Draft: space? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever would accept that page as is would need their reviewer rights removed. "AFC's mandate is to accept pages that will pass AFD." Among many other things. Accepting pages with almost exclusively blatantly incorrect information just because the topic is notable is making Wikipedia worse, not better. The page at the moment has one correct entry, "7 – 17 August: Belgium at the 2025 World Games"; everything else is either speculation or just factually wrong for the topic. I would urge you to reread Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions, which contains a lot more than "notable = accept". Fram (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I've read that page. I even helped write it. In particular, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions#Core purpose, which says (second sentence): "Articles that will probably survive a listing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion should be accepted."

See also the second sentence of the next section: "Article submissions that are likely to survive an AfD nomination should be accepted and moved to mainspace" (bold in the original). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the while ignoring the detailed checklist and workflow, which give further, more detailed instructions than the (by definition) simplified summary. I see no good arguments why this page should be in the mainspace as it is now, and putting it in the mainspace while knowing about the issues (which is what you claim a reviewer should do now, if asked by the creator) is basically vandalism, deliberately and knowingly putting incorrect information in the mainspace. Fram (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it would be best to blank the obviously wrong information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Draft:San Sanana as an example, why did you choose to hide it in Draft: space instead of blanking the apparently incorrect information (KjjjKjjj, that song isn't "Falling Behind", like it says in Draft:San Sanana#Charts, right?) and tagging it with {{notability}}?WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, if it is notable, I should keep it in mainspace. If it is not notable, I should nominate it for deletion. And if notability is unclear I should tag it with "notability", even if there are (like here) clearly other problems as well. Is there any scenario where you believe draftifications is an acceptable course? Fram (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are a couple of scenarios for which I would accept and even recommend draftification. The first and most obvious is when the editor(s) working on it want to take that route. The second obvious case IMO is when the subject is not currently notable but is reasonably likely to become notable within the next couple of months. For example, we know that certain events, such as the US State of the Union speech or the United States census, will continue to happen on a predictable schedule, but future events frequently fail Wikipedia:Notability (events) until shortly before they happen. If an article is created a bit too early, when we don't have enough sources/attention from the world at large, but when we also believe such sources will be forthcoming in short order (e.g., a press conference has been scheduled for an announcement), then I think draftification is better than either deletion or keeping it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that extremely minimal approach to draftification is shared by many, and would leave many very poor new articles in the mainspace. Something like Draft:Science Centre, Patan has now been draftified twice, which is a good thing. Would the subject survive an AfD? No idea, and as discussed elsewhere, it isn't the job of reviewers to do a WP:BEFORE check. Fram (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your extremely maximal approach to draftification, openly ignoring the only written guidance on the subject because it's "just an essay", is shared by even fewer. – Joe (talk) 11:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See below, we actually have policy about this, which is what I follow. Fram (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the proposal would be defacto ratification if in effect the idea is to make DRAFTOBJECT policy then that should be the proposal, rather than discussing edit summaries. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something doesn't have to be a policy (or even a guideline) to be linked in a tool-generated edit summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...which should be obvious given that the current edit summary used by scripts is a paraphrase of the very same essay (Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace). Apparently it's okay to use a non-policy to justify moving tens or hundreds of thousands of articles out of mainspace, but not to remind the creators that they're entitled to move it back? – Joe (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point had nothing to do with adding anything to the summary of automated edits. It was that if editors wanted to make suggestions for new policy they should do so. The comment I was replying to was suggesting that policy should be made via discussion on another topic. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use that edit summary either, and if you both want a policy about draftification; WP:ATD-I: Recently created articles that have potential, but do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, may be moved to the draft namespace ("draftified") for improvement. Fram (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those quality standards defined? Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere probably, just like many things around here. Having reliable sources and intelligible prose, being factually correct, and actually being about the topic as suggested by the title, is what I (and in my experience most others who do new page checking) apply. I don't think any of these can be considered really controversial. Fram (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion demonstrates that every one of those is controversial:

• The only requirement for sources is that they exist - if they don't exist the article should be prodded or sent to AfD, if they do exist add them to the article, if you don't know then look.
• If there is no intelligible prose then the article should be deleted (speedy deletion criteria G1, G2, A1, A2 and/or A3 almost certainly apply)
• If the article is factually incorrect then it should be corrected or nominated at prod or AfD (unless it's a blatant hoax, in which case it should be speedily deleted under criterion G3).
• If it isn't about the topic as suggested by the title, then either rename the article or nominate it for prod/AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody would disagree that those are desirable qualities in an article, but whether they constitute a required standard for mainspace is indeed controversial. As just one data point, the existence of {{unreliable sources}}, {{incomprehensible}}, {{disputed}}, and {{off topic}} would suggest that all of the problems you list have been tolerated in mainspace in the past. The lack of a definition of "Wikipedia's quality standards"—AKA being "ready for mainspace"—is the problem that motivated this discussion and, as the discussion shows, it leaves room for a wide range of understandings. – Joe (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to ping me when a policy proposal is put up for a vote. Until then, I don't think anything useful will come from continuing this discussion with you three. The requirements put up here, basically requesting the reviewers needing to do all the work the creator should have done and can do much easier, are mainly based on misreadings of policy ("The only requirement for sources is that they exist", well, no: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. " and "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (bold in original). A completely unsourced article may thus be blanked (which would make it eligible for speedy deletion, not really preferable), or by draftifying it "removed" from the mainspace; and the burden to add sources lies with whoever wants it back in the mainspace, the one who "restores material". Putting that burden on new page reviewers is not acceptable (of course they may do so if they wish, but it should never be a requirement). Similarly, "If the article is factually incorrect then it should be corrected or nominated at prod or AfD (unless it's a blatant hoax, in which case it should be speedily deleted under criterion G3)" yes, it should be corrected by the creator or whoever wants the material in the mainspace. Otherwise it will be deleted. It shouldn't be brought to Prod or AfD as these are not for cleanup. "If it isn't about the topic as suggested by the title, then either rename the article or nominate it for prod/AfD." No, if you actually do new page patrol then you will encounter many cases where someone has created an article for topic X by copying their own previous creation about topic Y, and forgot to change all or most of the text. Topic X is notable, the creator is probably knowledgeable and interested in correcting this, but until then we have a completely wrong article in the mainspace (not incomplete, poorly sourced, just wrong). Speedy deleting this as a hoax is very WP:BITEy and draftifying the much more friendly, gentle solution, the middle ground between keeping the mainspace factual and the editor encouraged to continue working on it.

The approach taken by you three seems to be "we need a policy or you can not do this" (even though we have a policy encouraging draftification in such cases), and "you are not allowed to do things which go against this essay here". Oh, and "all the work should be done by the reviewers, not the creators" or (judging from their contributions) people who never patrol new pages, edit draft space, or nominate pages for deletion (like Whatamidoing and Thryduulf) I'll continue to ignore this until you get a policy that actually supports your positions, or until you get a consensus at ANI or so that I should change my approach. Fram (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that is not opposing DRAFTOBJECT, which is about empowering the newcomer to get their week at AfD if they want it. Opposing part of DRAFTOBJECT are a few example of something draftified twice, where WP:ATD-I rolled with DRAFTOBJECT would mean that Fram is supposed to send the bad article to AfD with a nomination to Draftify. Maybe “do not Draftify twice” is a soft rule, maybe newcomers mainspacing a draftified article do not actually mean that they want to debate it at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find your (Fram's) response interesting, because underneath it, it feels like there is a question about whether Wikipedia is a collegial, collaborative project. Several of the examples you give sound like a Wikipedia-as-a-game model: Any sentence could be required to have an inline citation, so if "you" don't have "enough" (or any) inline citations, then "my" move is to capture your article. If you make the right moves, you can get your article promoted back to the mainspace, but I see my role as fundamentally adversarial: I will prevent you from sharing information until you do so in a way that I believe is appropriate, and I will not help you fix any problems you encounter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought the singular purpose of Wikipedia is to be a factual, verifiable encyclopedia that anyone can edit. But all this time it has actually been a social platform where the real goal is to get more precious users by zealously protecting their right to publish whatever they want to the first page of Google. Editor retention above all else. JoelleJay (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How the fuck are we going to maintain a "factual, verifiable encyclopedia" if we don't retain editors? – Joe (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "pseudopolicy" and why is it exempt from actual policies, like Policy and guideline pages are seldom established without precedent[3] and require strong community support. Policies and guidelines may be established through new proposals, promotion of essays or guidelines, and reorganization of existing policies and guidelines through splitting and merging. [...] Proposals for new guidelines and policies require discussion and a high level of consensus from the entire community for promotion to guideline or policy status. Adding the {{policy}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean the page is policy, even if the page summarizes or copies policy. and Wikipedia has a standard of participation and consensus for changes to policies and guidelines. and The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material and Because a lack of content is better than misleading or false content, unsourced content may be challenged and removed.?JoelleJay (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]