Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Village pump (proposals) archive  

This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214

OpenStreetMap

The opposing arguments have considerable merit esp. about factual accuracy and lack of community control and a host of ILIKEIT / SOFIXIT arguments ain't a suitable rebut. That being said, there is a prominent sentiment that these maps are more often correct than not, the best of all similar products in the market and are often helpful to an average reader. Thus, these maps remain permitted to be used but shall their usage be challenged over any article, a procedure to obtain local consensus on the issue shall be followed and abided by. ∯WBGconverse 11:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Moved from WP:Village pump (miscellaneous) § OpenStreetMap
 – Alsee (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC) Alsee
Map
Interactive map showing border of Michigan permanent link to the version (click to zoom)

Should countries and other territorial articles (Example? contain "road maps" with borders outline of the areas in question with links to the Crowd sourced OpenStreetMap (WP:UGC? These maps seem endorsed by the Wikimedia foundation - however are not editable by the Wikipedia community directly to correct errors and original research problems. Secondly should we lead our readers to an external website in the lead of territorial articles WP:ELNO? --Moxy 🍁 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

Maps

Support removal The community cant edit these third party Wiki-style maps (WP:USERGENERATED) and in many cases this would be the 4th map added to the lead of articles that in many cases dont even mention roads in the articles. Personally I think they are simply not reliable enough for Wikipedia all over ....lets quote the warning the Wikimedia foundation has posted...."we cannot represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of the information in maps"....but understand in road articles it could be ok to have.--Moxy 🍁 14:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal in general, both on the grounds Moxy gives above and also on the grounds that they generally look extremely amateurish and badly designed. I don't support a blanket ban on them as I can certainly imagine cases where there's a legitimate "better than nothing" use case, but the onus should be on anyone adding these to an article to justify why the inclusion of an OSM-based map is an improvement. ‑ Iridescent 14:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal. See West_Los_Angeles, which has a map that defies the gist of the article, which says that the borders of this community are not distinct. The dot which is inserted into the map gives the wrong story. I don't see how this map can be considered a "reliable source," considering that it is simply one map-maker's opinion. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: I am not a mapmaker, and having tried, I can tell you that the technicalities of creating boundaries for the interactive maps are beyond the ability of most Wikipedia editors. Being able to rely on the nearly-always-reliable OSM is remarkably beneficial. If there are instances where OSM is inaccurate, why not work with them to fix the maps, or simply generate your own correct map for use in Wikimedia projects? Regardless, having the option of using OSM is an enormous benefit that we shouldn't throw away just over a few inaccuracies. ɱ (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
From my experience our editors do very well at making boundary maps as seen by 4 maps at London.--Moxy 🍁 15:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Well I edit articles on places in New York, and I don't know a single editor there/in WikiNYC (the largest chapter in the US) who knows how to create KML maps. I've resorted to using OSM data or just not including interactive maps. ɱ (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Moxy, it seems that BeenAroundAWhile above disagrees with you, he doesn't like how users make (static) locator maps and location maps either. Nemo 14:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I would agree about locator maps...but this whole RfC is about "political boundaries" and adding road maps to articles that dont mention roads. What the editors here might find a good addition is what is seen at Wiki Travel. --Moxy 🍁 15:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Moxy, Your link is to Wikivoyage, not Wikitravel. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. There is a lot relevant information to be found in the map besides the highlighted border (in this particular example). One can find positions of cities, towns etc. that a given article may mention. Therefore very relevant to use the map. It looks like few users here can not bear Wikipedia linking out to another friendly free content project (OSM) which serves us high-quality free maps. These users would probably much rather link to proprietary maps (like Google maps) which is absolutely unacceptable for myself. The global quality of OSM is even mostly much better than Google Maps (you can check yourself). OSM is also used by many commercial companies (see this, this or this list) over proprietary maps because of its quality at no cost. OSM are the best global freely licensed maps in the world (this is why WMF is hosting them) - you simply can not find a better source, and that is a fact. And yes, instead of complaining about the quality why not to fix the map yourself? It is as easy as registering at OSM and using their graphical editor to edit the map.--Kozuch (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
OK a few points to cover. As per WP:Lead things in the lead should be covered by the article it's self... many maps are being added to the leads of articles that don't mention roads. If the community sees a value in the maps on political territorial articles at the very least they should be in the section if there is one about roads. As for just register and fix the map that still means the community here still has no way of debating any problems related to WP:OR of a political boundary.--Moxy 🍁 15:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Maps are essential to encyclopedias, they don't need to be explained out in the body. Never were on Wikipedia, and never will be. And, yes, editing OSM is actually pretty easy. We can debate the accuracy of OSM maps here on Wikipedia, and choose whether or not to use any particular OSM map based on OR, accuracy, etc. ɱ (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
That would be great but the problem is there being added on mass with no debate. Should require a talk before mass addition of anything.--Moxy 🍁 17:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep (Based on map shown) More useful than an image based map (per first 2 sentences of Moxy), and can easily be edited to fix mistakes - the community can edit these maps in the same way they can edit Commons. ~~ OxonAlex  - talk 16:01, 4 August 2019 (UTC) (clarified 16:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC))
  • Keep and expand usage of template:maplink: such maps are just a natural evolution of the location maps and locator maps which have been used for over a decade in PNG or SVG format, without the hassle (and danger) of maintaining hundreds of thousands of files. Nemo 16:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I just removed one from Slovenia article since there are too many maps on the top already. I see the usability but the current style with a thick red line looks just plainly ugly to me. If these maps are to be used, they need to be improved. --Tone 17:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
It's very easy to adjust the color and width of the line. See Template:Maplink. ɱ (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Then let's first fix the maps to look nice and add them afterwards. Not the other way around ;) --Tone 20:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
That’s not how it works... ɱ (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The red line borders are often (usually?) inaccurate when zooming in. In the Michigan map, this can be seen when zooming in on Detroit, Sault Ste. Marie, or Ironwood, for example, but I've noticed it on other maps too. Station1 (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T155919
The shapes are being over-simplified - this is a known bug (see here) which hopefully will be solved soon.--Kozuch (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. The WP:ELNO argument is spurious. The endorsement argument is spurious (no article content is “endorsed”). OSM is editable; what does “directly” mean? What map is “directly” editable in Wikipedia? I don’t buy these elitist arguments about “amateurish” and so on. Dumping OSM in the absence of alternatives does not serve readers. Yes, use something better when available, but don’t get rid of what’s available. Strebe (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal - These are beyond hideous and should never have been approved here (example),
They're currently used on highway articles too however on these maps there are no road names or landmarks ... They're just squiggly lines on a nameless map .... Get rid. –Davey2010Talk 19:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
"beyond hideous" - you are amusing myself. I guess you did not use the link in the map caption pointing to maritime boundary - do you know country borders exist on sea, too? The map in Italy article showed maritime borders, you can consider these to be hideous or not, but the borders are just a fact. You can like the fact or not, but Wikipedia is here to present facts not to judge them. Period.--Kozuch (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
That's great, but the red borders on those maps do not reflect fact. For example lets look at that UK one linked above by Davey2010. The Northern Ireland/Ireland border is inaccurate enough to start a war over. The town of Belleek, for example, is 90% on the wrong side of the border. For something that is contentious, us putting a stamp to these border maps is really poor. Yes borders are real. Maritime borders are real. However these maps are putting up what is quite frankly made up borders on land, ignoring the maritime ones. Just zoom in and look at the red borders and see how they do not follow the real borders to any real degree of accuracy. That's the problem people are having with these maps, not the fact they're using the Open Street Map, but the super-imposed inaccurate borders that are clearly inaccurate as you can see the real border close by them. Canterbury Tail talk 21:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
The inaccuracy of the red line (it is over-simplified and does not follow the border especially in areas there the border has complicated shape) is a know bug of Wikimedia Maps - see here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T155919 hopefully it will be fixed soon (even though over 2 years old) --Kozuch (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused ? .... You seem to be suggesting I have a problem with Maritime boundarys which isn't the case here .... My issue is with the maps and more specifically the giant red borders - Also everyone knows the border for the UK and it doesn't need a big childlike drawing to show it. As for "amusing myself" ...... I'll leave that unanswered. –Davey2010Talk 21:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure "everyone knows the border for the UK" - consider a kid just learning about UK or geography. There is a technical bug (https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T155919) that over-simplifies the shapes which explains the inaccuracies in the shapes. I will try to help fix that bug.--Kozuch (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
In all fairness I don't know the age demographic of those who visit but I would assume they're 12+ ?, Ah okay, Maybe if the lines were less thicker and perhaps black that might change opinions ? ... dunno but imho they are hideous in their current form. –Davey2010Talk 18:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal, for country articles, at least for now. I don't object to the idea in principle, but one serious problem with the current implementation that struck me in the examples I've seen so far is that these maps attempt to show maritime borders in the same style as land borders, implying both that (a) these maritime borders are of the same significance as the land borders and (b) shown with the same degree of exactness. They are neither. There are good reasons why professional general-purpose maps out there virtually never attempt to do this. Maritime boundaries are notoriously difficult to define, very often contentious or objectively ill-defined, and the ones I've seen shown in several samples here are either – to the extent that they ostensibly look as if they were exactly drawn – very questionable WP:OR, or plain false, or in some cases taking sides in what are in fact internationally disputed situations. I'd reconsider if we could get a version of these maps that filters out maritime boundaries or shows them only approximately and in those places they really matter. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal I've reverted the addition of at least 3 of these today. Why? Because the borders on the maps are quite frankly dreadful. The underlying maps themselves are fine, it's the red drawn on borders that are of worse than zero value. They're interactive so you can zoom in, at which point you see the country border clearly on the main map, but the red outline of the supposed border that is only accurate to 10s of miles. The ones I reverted had borders in other countries. The France one had the French border going through Jersey and it appeared to have annexed chunks of Belgium. The attention to detail of them is quite appalling, and there is no evidence to support what they are actually using for the maritime borders, which look quite wrong. So on the grounds that these add on borders are very obviously not accurate, they should be removed as it's quite against what we're trying to do here. Unless Geneva has been taken over by France without the news having noted it (just check the history on the France article). They're simply laughably wrong. Canterbury Tail talk 00:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: No it's not the thickness of the border I'm concerned about. It's the fact the red borders overlaid on top of the maps have zero resemblance to the actual borders due to their extremely low number of data points. Canterbury Tail talk 16:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal - Poor quality, outside of community control. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This feature was enabled based on the discussion Pump Technical: Should we ask for mapframe to be turned on? At the time I had potential concerns about the feature, and I was particularly concerned that such a significant proposal was posted at Pump Technical rather than posted to Pump Proposals. It appears to have resulted in a rather distinct skew in participation. The discussion was buried under heavy Snow when I stumbled onto it, so it seemed futile to investigate my concerns about the feature. Ironically I discovered this new discussion had been posted to Pump Miscellaneous, so I moved it to Pump Proposals. I want to ensure that all Proposal-page-watchers would have a chance to review this significant development this time. I still haven't investigated this as carefully as I'd like. On one hand I can see how the maps could be useful, on the other hand I'm very concerned about how this imports external content. Alsee (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak support removal for national and sub-national articles; oppose for smaller human settlements such as cities, towns, and counties. The OSM map for countries, and sub-national entities such as U.S. states, seems slightly unnecessary due to there being SVG maps of almost all of these, if not every. Besides, these are typically easily-recognizable entities that don't need an interactive map. There may be a value in showing maritime borders though, so I don't strongly support the removal of such maps, especially since the shape formatting could be easily changed from thick red lines with dark fill, to thin black lines with no fill.
    For smaller human settlements, though, I don't support their removal, or I do support keeping the maps that are already there. These are not easily recognizable shapes and not everyone will be able to locate these on a map. Even if there's SVG maps showing the locations of towns, cities, counties, etc., they can't be zoomed-in. For instance, the article on Los Angeles city may benefit from an OSM map of the borders, since the SVG map (File:LA County Incorporated Areas Los Angeles highlighted.svg) can't be zoomed-in to show the jagged borders of the city. epicgenius (talk) 12:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment It isn't clear why some of the discussion refers to "road maps", because the maps added by {{maplink}} aren't necessarily road maps; see (for example) this edit to United Kingdom. David Biddulph (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - look everyone, Wikipedia sucks too. Outside a hodgepodge of science and Dungeons and Dragons articles, there's plenty that are atrocious. Basically every article in the food, wine, and beverage field is a collection of minor edits into something barely cohesive. We're getting too far ahead of ourselves by trying to ban a tool that has some flaws but yet some good uses, just like Wikipedia does. Google, Facebook, Apple, and others link to, call on, and utilize Wikipedia in their software, understanding its imperfections and supporting its improvement. Why can't we with OSM? Let's use it where it is accurate, and when it isn't, we won't; otherwise we can edit it pretty easily. ɱ (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment—can someone please clarify terminology here? Is proposal related to all maps, or just "road maps"? In the latter case, many articles have used KMLs to draw the routes of subject roads on a map, and it's been trivial to convert these KMLs into GeoJSON data used to draw the route of a roadway on one of these interactive maps, allowing readers to zoom in and view the road in more detail without leaving the article. It is also quite easy to create and edit KML files (and their resulting GeoJSON) to create or update the road maps used in highway articles without resorting to dedicated GIS software with steep learning curves just to output an SVG that will need cleanup to be useful as a map in a highway article. If this proposal were to touch upon road and highway articles, then I disapprove of it in that context and support keeping the maps around. Imzadi 1979 → 17:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @David Biddulph and Imzadi1979: I don't think this has anything to do with maps placed in road-related articles. Rather, it's the inclusion of OSM maps in articles about geopolitical entities. The reason why they are being referred to as "road maps", is because OSM contains roads as well, whereas regular SVG images don't. epicgenius (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Continue using OpenStreetMap, and expand the use of this resource. Whether linking in the article or just using the coords template should be done on a case-by-case basis, but we should use interactive maps where we can, and OSM are the best available open content maps. —Kusma (t·c) 17:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep but only for use in road articles. Maps of this kind should not be used in articles for countries or other political divisions because border accuracy is generally poor, apparently due to low resolution. See this edit to France, which was soon reverted due to significant inaccuracies. Highway 89 (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Regarding the map you reference -- The fact that the line cuts through the very edge of Jersey...it didn't throw me. If the lines were curves and followed the contours of the borders and rivers....sure, then it would have bothered me. But the lines are drawn in polygon style. It is not perfect, but I see a high value in this kind of map when it accompanies an article and I can therefore forgive the crudeness of the shape of the line. Phatblackmama (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep maps when they're wanted by the editors of that article. This should be a case-by-case, strictly individual decision. If a better one is available (however the editors at that particular article define "better"), then use the better one, but when the interactive map is the best one, then use the interactive map. OSM is a wiki like us, so if it's wrong (tolerably rare, I understand), then you could go there and fix it yourself, or even just leave them a nice note about the problem, the way so readers leave notes for us on the village pump pages. And if the main problem is that you don't know how to fix these maps yourself, then learn how to improve them! Adding points is not rocket science. voy:Wikivoyage:Dynamic maps Expedition has some decent tools, and possibly even better than the help pages that we have locally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, in the case of the country boundaries, I wouldn't say the errors are "tolerably rare". They are ubiquitous. And in the case of the maritime boundaries, trying to include them is a fundamental conceptual mistake and leads to unavoidable errors and WP:OR throughout, and I at least have no idea what I'd have to do to remove them, even if I wanted to edit OSM. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep for roads as they (unlike "big" things like France) will require a level of volume and consistency not achievable with individual file uploads. You know, unless we program a sophisticated bot to generate SVG map files from (you guessed it) OpenStreetMap data. ―cobaltcigs 23:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove. They may possible be useful for roads at a fairly low level. For land borders of countries they are mostly useless, and for maritime borders they are in some cases hugely misleading, not to say plain wrong. Another case of "automatic edits" going wrong. The real world is simply not clear-cut enough to use such "tools" in an encyclopedia. --T*U (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: The maps help the user when there's otherwise no map. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:55, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The articles in question have multiple boundary maps...in many cases multiple in the lead. Are you referring to road maps?--Moxy 🍁 23:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
--Moxy 🍁 23:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep: Maps are very helpful for providing spatial knowledge to our readers. If any map is incorrect, it could be discussed on talk page or commented till it is fixed.Arjunaraoc (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per Kozuch and Arjunaraoc. This is a tool that his very useful in some instances. I think the thick red line by default is ugly but this can be changed. The UK maritime map looks much better with a thin blue line (the accuracy is another matter). If the OSM data is too low resolution for purpose on the page in question the map should not be used there. Higher resolution data can be added. Like nearly everything added to an article, the editors should evaluate whether it is a good addition that improves the page. The individual talk places are the place for discussion of such edits. Banning the tool because the output is not always suitable seems a draconian approach. My biggest problem with these maps is that any further development is on hold.   Jts1882 | talk  08:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Mu. Let's first be sure we're on the same page as to what these maps are, how their rendering works, and which errors/features/oversimplifications are due to OSM coders, OSM mappers, and WP/WMF coders. Daß Wölf 10:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ’’’Support removal’’’ from non road articles. Border of the Balkans is completely misleading.--2605:8D80:563:95E2:C8DD:6BEB:74A6:8DF9 (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal per Iridescent, Canterbury Tail, and others. Not a positive addition to our articles. Happy days, LindsayHello 17:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Use them when they improve the article, take them out when they are not useful No need for overlegislating this. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong keep with additional WP:TROUTing for the nominator and those supporting removal. This kind of RfC is why Wikipedia can't have nice things. If you want to improve the map, it's easy enough to contribute to OpenStreetMap. Wikipedia isn't the place to manage maps, and it shouldn't be - OSM does that well, and even static maps are on Wikimedia Commons. Mike Peel (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strongly support removal. Zoom in on the Michigan one at the top of the thread to see how inaccurate the border is. For example, it shows parts of Kingsford, Michigan as being in Aurora, Florence County, Wisconsin. Being crowdsourced on another website, the maps do not comply with WP:V and aren't subject to WP's editorial controls. The risk of putting out bad information is too large. An interactive map would be great, but not a crowdsourced one from another website. – Levivich 21:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Moot. The border issue is not an issue at all: the "inaccuracies" of land borders are there apparently because of a problem with our templates, which retain the same coarse polygon when you zoom in (compare the mapframe borders of France linked above [1] with the actual OSM entity [2]). And besides, why would we want to add OSM maps for country or state borders? We already have good image maps, and conveniently, they don't allow you to zoom in beyond their intended resolution. And if there are problems with marginal use cases (like borders or highways), then just don't use OSM maps in those marginal cases. For the much more numerous point-like features (like settlements), they're indispensible. And obviously, editors should'be be adding them en masse to articles unless there's been a discussion first. – Uanfala (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Based on the removal points above. The known 2-year-old bugs probably aren't going to be fixed soon. In the maps' current state, they are not as valuable as they should be and this sadly isn't going to change anytime soon. So, remove. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep (mostly). The fact that it's possible to zoom really far in on the interactive maps but not the other maps makes this an inherently unfair comparison; we're not going to be removing everything based on File:BlankMap-World.svg just because the borders and coastlines are only accurate to within 10 km. Furthermore, modern Commons maps and KML pages aren't required to be sourced in any way, so it's also an unfair comparison to claim that the OSM data shouldn't be used because it's not verified.

    That said, there is certainly a case for not using this on large complicated objects where the software is more likely to simplify objects in a way that is visually irritating or distracting. On the other hand, there are many territorial areas which are not as large as Michigan (for example, city districts) and are drawn visibly better (mainly due to the smaller number of edges in the original object). If it were up to me, I would probably recommend avoiding their use for areas larger than, say, 2,500 km2, but I wouldn't specify a hard limit. Jc86035 (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep/no prohibition. I don't see any reason given for a blanket removal. Maps in general are valuable, and these in particular are crowd-sourced so our volunteers have the option of correcting any errors they see through OSM. Where Wikimedia-hosted/controlled maps exist that are better, editors can likewise swap those in themselves. If a particular map is demonstrably wrong, it can be removed pending correction. If an article has too many maps already, editors can change that too. All that can be done without an RfC, which must be asking for something rather broader, for which I don't see the justification. › Mortee talk 01:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Per rationales of Pbsouthwood and Mike Peel. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As stated above, if a particular map is demonstrably wrong, it can be removed pending correction. But there should be no rule banning these maps. Phatblackmama (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removal because of the inaccuracies of land borders. Peter K Burian (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I like the red line around the area of interest. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

External websites

When selecting the map it takes you to an external link of the map...is this a case of an exception of our guide that merits an external link in the lead as per WP:ELPOINTS? "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.".--Moxy 🍁 15:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
The EL argument makes no sense. It was created so people don't write "The London Philharmonic Orchestra (LPO) is a British Orchestra"... Not so we don't attribute content used in the article, or can't use that content whatsoever. ɱ (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Normally external links of any kind in the body of an article indicate to our readers that it's an external link like with {{External media}}... and normally only after thoughtful consideration especially when it's in the lead.--Moxy 🍁 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Great but it's clear that maps that use external data need to attribute it. Do you have any other proposal for attributing the map data to OSM? Anyhow, it's not in the spirit of WP:ELPOINTS, written merely so people don't paste in spam/promotional ELs throughout an article, like in the example above. ɱ (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Normally, external links in the body off an article aren't marked well, because they're leading to Wikisource or Wiktionary. We also see them for links to Bible verses, IETF RFCs, as non-ref-tag-using inline citations in some tables (especially in lists of websites), and in the {{coord}} template, among other things. "Not normally" means "rather more often than rarely, once you count all the exceptions up" in this instance. And I can't say that I share Moxy's believe that {{External media}} is deployed only after thoughtful consideration. But no, this is not a violation of anything in WP:EL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
No indication it's an external link to an OR map not editable by this community ....see Poland info box. --Moxy 🍁 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Ehh, it just goes to an information page about their copyright. And basically all Wikipedia maps are OR, so... ɱ (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Maps must be sourced just like any other content....even so called sourced maps that the community can edit are marked/tagged as being unfactual something. This cannot be done by this community at an external website. See File:NouvelleFrance-Vraie-Version.png for what is done so editors can see what's going on with disputed Maps. --Moxy 🍁 18:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
I get that with historical maps, but most infobox boundary maps, like Michigan's borders, are sky-blue cases that don't need RSs. The jpg/svg infobox maps typically don't. That's my point. ɱ (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The map is not an external link. It's a Wikipedia/WMF-generated map using OSM data on the backend. Your browser doesn't contact OSM servers when it renders the map. OSM requires users of its data to draw their own maps anyway. Re: interactive maps, I'd go as far as to say that if we want to offer private internal interactive maps without cataloguing a database of roads, borders, rivers etc. ourselves (ie. duplicating what OSM editors have done), OSM is the only realistic choice.
That being said, the map does offer links to various commercial websites in a drop-down menu on the bottom right of the screen. Those indeed are external links that we probably don't really need but offer for convenience of users who don't care what an external link is. Daß Wölf 10:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Individual decisions

  • Modify. I'm proposing here that we determine that a decision on whether to include a map be left to the editors of each individual article (via WP:Talk). Thus, some articles would have a map and other articles would not. In the present discussion, we would state only that we can't make a blanket decision about whether to use them generally or not. I certainly would not want some Admin simply closing this discussion after so many good points have been brought out on each side. Can we agree to do this? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Would seem reasonable but they have been spammed all over and when reverted are being re-implemented ...so yes a talk would be great before maps with obvious errors are added all over .--Moxy 🍁 20:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A bot should expand youtu.be URL's for convenience while editing.

Wikipedia's filters reject youtu.be URLs. But manually expanding the short URL each time (i.e. by manually typing “https://youtube.com/watch?v=” or opening the URL and then copying it from the URL bar is not that convenient, therefore I suggest being able to add the youtu.be URLs, but a bot automatically expands those. That would be far move convenient. ––Handroid7 (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe that the filter which rejects youtu.be links is the global spam blacklist. As far as I can tell, there is no way to whitelist things which are globally blacklisted on en.wikipedia, so your proposed solution is I believe not technically possible. And there has been recent discussion on meta of removing youtu.be from the global blacklist, which didn't seem to go anywhere. So I suspect this is the wrong venue, and there is unlikely to be consensus for the change at the right venue. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto-public: we do have the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. — xaosflux Talk 15:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal - recent events articles

The news of riots in South Africa led me to look at the SA article, and the idea came to me that there are recent events, like the current riots, which are connected to important topics. Important articles could have a connected "recent events" article, like "Recent events related to South Africa". And there could be a link to that "recent events" article at the top of the main article. -Druid Fiesta (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Voting on Wikipedia

Can WikiMedia be somehow updated to deal with voting better than simply editing a document (as is the current method)? Rebroad (talk) 15:35, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Rebroad: we have SecurePoll that is used for several pure secret ballot "votes". In general on Wikipedia, polling is not a substitute for discussion - so we don't "vote" on things that often. — xaosflux Talk 15:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux:, this page alone seems to have a reasonable amount of voting on it, e.g. the OpenStreetMaps is full of people either "support"ing or "oppose"ing. Rebroad (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Rebroad: - but the vast majority attach reasons, frequently fairly detailed, to them. The closer evaluates them - weak, absent or irrelevant reasoning counts for less. It also provides nuance - so a close frequently doesn't just go "option 1 was adopted or option 2" but "Option 1 was adopted, but with the following caveats receiving consensus...". In deletion discussions, for example, failure to provide a legitimate justification means a vote would be discounted. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS)

We couldn't even convince enough people here to support speaking out against the EU copyright proposal, which really did have potential effect on Wikipedia. There's no way this is going to go anywhere. Anomie⚔ 11:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

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

President Donald Trump, a self-confessed Luddite and a friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin, has started taking steps to replace the U.S. Navy's Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System with old-fashioned steam-powered catapults. It's worth nothing that back in May 2017, Trump told Time magazine he had directed the Navy to abandon EMALS and go back to steam. The reprecussions of EMALS being reverted back to steam could be very costly and significant to other technologies such as the Internet, especially Wikipedia.

The Wikimedia Foundation has concerned that this move could led to similar moves against technology, and could hamper Wikipedia itself. They recognize that ruining an innovation such as EMALS could potentially lead to equipment that makes Wikipedia possible being reverted to pre-computer times. Moreover, Wikipedia would have to need a lot of people to run the site without the use of computers and other forms of modern technology that makes Wikipedia possible.

When the U.S. bill “The Stop Online Piracy Act” or “SOPA” threatened Wikipedia’s future by encouraging ISPs to block websites containing even small amounts of copyrighted material, the Wikipedia community, in this very forum, decided to “black out” its site for a day, alerting visitors to the legislative threat and inviting them to contact elected officials. See Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative.

As a result, nearly unprecedented numbers of people did so, and the legislation stalled. Yet, we didn't take action to save net neutrality. The President's proposed order to replace the EMALS with steam is costly and—like SOPA—these could be averted by a large number of calls to Congress, but it should be done elsewhere.

Should the Wikipedia community do *something* to save EMALS and oppose the return of steam catapults, short of Wikipedia being involved in assuming a political stance over anything by taking action, and of course without disruption?

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

Granular privileges on Wikipedia

(non-admin closure) per WP:SNOW, there is no consensus developing to do this, and no details on how it could possibly operate across millions of editors. UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Rather than having 2 types of user, non-admin and admin, can Wikipedia be moved to a ratings system (a bit like a credit score) where users gain or lose points based on credits received from other users (whose influence also varies based on their credit)? The site owners would be the "seed creditors" (or "credit creators") and the system would simply just work with the right algorithm. Instead of page protections, it could be such that only users with sufficient credit can edit a page, and those with insufficient credit can only suggest changes (that those with credit can approve or reject). Rebroad (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That would move Wikipedia away from being "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Wikipedia does not have "site owners". 331dot (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Seems we kind of have this already. Different protection levels, arbitrated restrictions imposed in resolving conflicts, things like that. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Probably not. On other websites where such a system was used ("Karma" as it is often called) they've ended up with cliques of popular users that then ended up being troublemakers and groups of outcast users that didn't deserve it. It's too easy to game such a system and at RfA you are at least required to provide a rationale and convince a bureaucrat to consider it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
they've ended up with cliques of popular users that then ended up being troublemakers and groups of outcast users that didn't deserve it To hear the world tell it at times, that's us too. :) --Izno (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, yeah here we totally don't have that.... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the above, there is not "two types of users" to begin with. There are several types of user access levels both below and above administrator, several user access levels that are in an entirely different "space" all together, and yet more user rights that exist elsewhere on sister projects that don't exist here at all. GMGtalk 15:51, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
And individuals aren't just vetted on trustworthiness, but specific technical ability for a role - so a general "karma" wouldn't work - plus the other issues enumerated above. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rebroad: Your questions/comments don't really seem like they are ready for a formal proposal. The WP:Teahouse or the idea village pump might be better places to get answers first. --Izno (talk) 16:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the idea pump is probably best. You'll need to discuss how to gain and lose points, and what kind of privileges should be automatic. Some analysis of other systems (for example, that of Stack Exchange) would help. —Kusma (t·c) 09:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like a particularly good idea, IMO; please see a list of perennial proposals to see why. Among other things, various "partial-admin" processes have been floated over the years but are too complicated and needless, and "automatic adminships" run afoul of WMF Legal's requirement that admins have the explicit trust of the community. I suggest that this be closed as-is, without prejudice to further development in the idea lab. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Another thing that just came to my mind, such a system prioritizes the opinions of other users, which is fine in a webforum I guess but not on an encyclopedia where the users are merely here to maintain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk • contribs) 16:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The current systems works fine just as they are. This proposal is all over the board, and flies against several core principles. Move to close. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Nope Firstly popularity ≠ competence and another problem is that employees of the "site owners" (the Wikimedia Foundation) are not allowed to edit article content, so they have no competence to evaluate the editorial competence of Wikipedians. The WMF runs the servers and sets a few basic rules, everything else is done by the community of editors. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to move pronoun preference to Basic info

In User Preferences, there is no reason or logic for including the preferred pronoun selection in the Internationalisation section of the Preferences input form.

  • It has nothing to do with internationalisation, so shouldn't be placed there.
  • No one will look for it there.
  • It is considered "basic information" on almost every web platform that offers this choice.

The setting should be moved to section Basic Information. Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Well in English language is not really relevant, as these pronouns are not generated automatically by the software, or conjugation required on the adjectives, verbs etc. But on some other languages it is important. For example grammatical gender does not affect the term "user" in English. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mathglot: The order of the layout in Special:Preferences is not something that we can control here on the English Wikipedia, and I strongly doubt there would be any support to make per-project ordering customization. As such, it would be a mediawiki change, and you can request it at Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests. I don't think it would get much pushback to move it up a few lines. — xaosflux Talk 22:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
@Xaosflux:, thanks for the tip!. Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't find any of your points convincing.
  • It does have everything to do with internationalization, in that the preference exists for and is used specifically by the code generating localized test based on the selected language.
  • {{citation needed}} Particularly since it's directly under the "basic info" section in the same "user profile" tab, it seems pretty easy to find.
  • Do those other platforms actually have a preference solely for grammatical gender, or is their "basic info" collecting gender (and anything else they can justify) to compile demographic information for marketing purposes?
I find the third bullet a particularly important distinction. Anomie⚔ 12:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I will say, having it under "Internationalization" because it's not used in English seems really Anglocentric. So, for the users in languages with grammatical gender, they have to go to internationalization settings to make the language they're editing in work? If it's basic for any language group, it should probably be under basic info, so they can find it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 6.9% of all FPs 12:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
As an aside, I think it's more influenced by computer programming than English. Everything having to do with the framework for customizing the user interface for specific markets is called "internationalization", and actually plugging in the details for a specific market is called "localization". Of course, that doesn't mean Wikipedia has to follow the same convention. isaacl (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Adam Cuerden: You indented your reply as if in reply to me, but I did not say that. "Localized text" includes text in English. And while English doesn't often need it, it can still be used for messages like MediaWiki:abusefilter-reautoconfirm-none and MediaWiki:notification-header-mention-agent-talkpage. But that (the fact that it's used in English too) doesn't change the fact that it's intended and used for i18n/l10n, it's not intended as "basic information" about a user. Anomie⚔ 17:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Isaacl has it exactly right, imho; it's influenced by computer programming. This is a common failure of UX design, that of wording or placement to suit programmers rather than users. Who is the Special:Preferences page even for? Nobody in the RW knows what I18n/L10n is other than programmers, and not even all of them. (I know, because I've been involved with them and the topic since before it had a name.) We are talking about the Preferences page: that is where Users go to set their preferences. There isn't one Wikipedia user in ten thousand, that goes to their Preferences page thinking about how they might want their MediaWiki:abusefilter-reautoconfirm-none messages to render. From one end of the internet to the other, the gender field on "Settings" or "Preferences" pages is about you⁠—the user⁠—it is not there to make things easy for IT or the back office folks.
It's also untrue that it is "not used in English". In fact, the field is used by users themselves: for one thing, by using the series of templates ( {{they}}, {{them}}, {{their}}, etc.) so that users may appropriately gender other users when using pronouns on Talk pages. The place where a normal user will look for that input field, is under 'Basic info'. If the input form is shared by employees of WMF who think of it as an i18n/L10n issue, then they should privilege normal users' expectations, not their own, when conceiving of the proper design for the input form. Mathglot (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, we should also avoid confusing people into thinking a preference about grammatical gender is somehow about gender identity in general, which seems to have happened many times over the years (including here). I note that gerrit:30756 specifically moved it out of "basic info" in 2012 (and reworded it to more clearly ask about grammar) for that very reason. IMO that outweighs unsupported assertions about what "normal users" might expect. Anomie⚔ 12:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to add suicidal disclaimer at Suicide

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
TL;DR - A consensus exists to update the hatnote of the suicide article to the version Doc James suggested in #Alternative proposal, specifically: This page is about the cause of death. For information on prevention, see suicide prevention. For other uses, see Suicide (disambiguation).

Long version: I've read over this discussion for a number of hours to weigh the arguments given by those that have commented here. Overall, each side argued their case rather well. Those supporting were rather unified in their rationale for adding a disclaimer to the page, largely - that the potential value of providing access to resources to prevent readers of the article committing suicide was worth an exception to our standard practices of any form of advocacy, disclaimers, or any other policies on Wikipedia. Many supported the remarks made by WMF legal counsel Jacob Rogers, and the evidence he provided on the value of linking to crisis hotlines and standard practices of doing so online, e,g WHO advice.

There was a general sentiment in those supporting that the no disclaimers guideline that was cited by the majority of the opposers has exceptions, and this specific case is a valid one worth applying IAR to. The strength of the arguments made by those in support was sufficient to set aside this guideline, in this discussion only, and I find an overall consensus to amend the hatnote.

However, those supporting some form of inclusion were somewhat divided on what should be in the hatnote, whether a link to suicide crisis hotlines, the overall article on suicide prevention, or the meta page on Wikimedia's mental health resources. This led me to weigh the considerations of those in opposition along with the different proposals made for hatnote inclusion.

A number of people opposed this proposal to link to the crisis hotlines list, with reasons including the disputed effectiveness of these crisis resources, and the desire to keep Wikipedia neutral and free from any advocacy. Many of these in opposition cited the argument made by Doc James on this specifically as their rationale. There was also general opposition to amend the hatnote at all, however on the balance of everything here, I did not find these arguments compelling enough to find a consensus in favour of the status quo.

I then refer to the alternate compromise proposal, to link to Suicide prevention in the hatnote, which was suggested by Doc James and supported by some of the editors that were opposed to the crisis hotline proposal, and also by editors that overall supported a change and commented in this discussion later. While this may not be a perfect solution, it has the most agreement out of all options in this discussion. My overall assessment of this discussion is that this version addresses the majority of the remaining opposition sufficiently to determine a consensus for this option.

I would stress that exceptions to well-established guidelines should be rare, and the outcome of this RFC should not be taken as creating a precedent for future discussions of this nature. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


This has been rejected before but I would like to raise this point again. Viewers of Wikipedia who are suicidal are more likely to search the Suicide Article than any other articles and as they read more info on suicide they may look at methods to commit suicide that are on the article and may actually replicate it.

I’ve seen many disclaimer that were added on top of the suicide article then they were deleted as there was a page on Wikipedia that tells Wikipedians how they respond to suicide threats from wikipedians. However most of the suicidal viewers are probably not wikipedians, they’re just random visitors of Wikipedia who just went to the suicide article to find out methods to attempt suicide.

Just by adding a disclaimer and redirecting them to the suicide crisis line on the top may just help them get out of that thought of committing suicide. So I’m proposing that we should add that disclaimer on the Suicide Wikipedia article just so we can prevent people committing suicide as a result of viewing that page. I also propose to add the same disclaimer on the Suicide Methods so they don’t replicate any sort of suicide attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OfficialNeon (talk • contribs) 23:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm broadly in favor of adding the top most visible and respectable national or international suicide prevention resources to the external links section. I proposed something similar years ago for the article for Rape and it was fairly broadly opposed. So I don't expect it will get consensus, but I'm still in favor of it. We're only one of the most popular websites in the world and all. GMGtalk 00:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't see anything wrong with adding such a disclaimer if you ask me. We're here to present facts, not encourage or condone any method of self-harm as what the suicide methods article may seem to imply, even if our job here is not to provide advice for things. Second, there's a similar disclaimer on articles like WikiLeaks telling people that Wikimedia has no affiliation with the site despite the name. TV Tropes, while more informal and less factually reliable, does take suicide seriously, and would go to lengths to advise suicidal individuals to seek help. Not that we'd add suicide counseling advice on each and every article though, but a general piece of advice to dissuade and comfort those who are depressed shouldn't hurt. As mentioned in the talk page, "the importance of harm reduction outweighs the importance of policies like WP:NPOV that might guide us under normal circumstances to leave out such a hat note." Blake Gripling (talk) 03:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Can we do a hatnote that is geographically targeted by IP address? If so that would seem sensible and responsible to me. ϢereSpielChequers 09:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@WereSpielChequers: that's not very feasible; if we did want to put something on these pages, perhaps a hatnote linking to Crisis hotlines. — xaosflux Talk 14:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned in previous discussions on this topic, what would be preferred is instead a wikilink to List of suicide crisis lines. MPS1992 (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
If we can do geo targeted watchlist notices we can certainly do this, maybe with a little programming. The vast majority of IP addresses can be linked to a country, so those countries where we do have a crisis line we could put a hatnote. ϢereSpielChequers 21:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I would suggest that whatever is selected look as neutral and as part of the encyclopedia as possible. Flashing lights and "NO, DON'T DO IT" would frighten the reader away. A hatnote, whether geographically targeted or no, puts the opportunity before the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
+1.
I'd support something along these lines, which guides an interested reader who inadvertently arrives at Suicide while searching for help on the subject, while not being flashy or condescending towards the general reader. Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
That example strikes me as appropriate and fitting with the style of Wikipedia. Particularly if the assertion that people looking for such information reach the general article is true; I have no evidence either way on that point, and benefit of the doubt here seems reasonable. Anomie⚔ 00:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, when I search "how to commit suicide" the third result is Suicide methods. GMGtalk 01:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
We don't do disclaimers in articles and we also don't disguise them as bad hatnotes. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Templates such as 'unsourced' may have been intended as editorial calls to action, but they also caution readers to take the contents of a page with a pinch of salt. Wikipedia does disclaimers, it just doesn't usually call them that. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell: WP:NODISCLAIMERS, which I linked to, explains why cleanup templates are one of very few exceptions to this rule. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, which should be a sign that asserting "We don't do disclaimers in articles" might oversimplify things when some nuance is in order. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
afaIk, this would be better done with an extension, a script instead of a template. viztor ✪ 02:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
"Dynamic" content in articles break caching, indexing, and possibly other services that rely on us. Keeping in mind the "readers first" line of thinking, lets not break things with any sort of assumption about "where you are" when displaying article content. Anomie's example of leading readers of the encyclopedia to an article about support is pretty good and doesn't try to guess which thing you should see. — xaosflux Talk 04:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Credit where it's due: The idea was Abecedare's, I just liked it. Anomie⚔ 11:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Certainly I see nothing wrong with something along these lines. While a geo-specified method would be nice, I'm concerned that cases where it was inaccurate would make it less helpful than a generic answer and link Nosebagbear (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thinking about this more, I don't really like putting a non-content banner of some sort on this page - the crisis lines are already linked at the bottom of the page. I suppose possibly a hatnote to the actual article on Suicide crisis might be editorially acceptable - as readers may actually be looking for that subject. — xaosflux Talk 14:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm against this idea although the sentiment behind the proposal is a good one. Two reasons: 1. People find this article through Google, Google already includes crisis information and local hotlines. 2. There's not really any good evidence that suggests crisis hotlines are actually helpful at preventing or limiting self harm.[3] --188.250.220.217 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Opposed "Don't do heroin" or "If raped call" is simply not our purpose....that said external links to help groups would be OK in my view.--Moxy 🍁 01:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment - And yet we have this policy page. Some things need not be didactic imho, but I guess it's all up to consensus. What I believe in is that we shouldn't just let suicidal people come in to the pages in question and carry out some form of self-harm as described there. Blake Gripling (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
WP:SUICIDE is unrelated to this proposal, and is certainly not an endorsement of this proposal. Banana Republic (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No disclaimers on articles. --Yair rand (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See guideline Wikipedia:NODISCLAIMERS. While I think this is a serious issue and I have sympathy with the intentions behind it, I do not think it is the job of the Wikipedia to give advice or tell people what to do or think. --Hecato (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. There's nothing wrong with a quick note on the page. As others have noted, we have disclaimers on some pages. They're usually in the form of a short hatnote. A quick one-line hatnote, along the lines of "If you're considering suicide, please visit List of suicide crisis lines" should be enough to help people that may be considering suicide, and not significantly detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. I believe that Wikipedia's goal is to help as many people as possible learn as much as they can, and to encourage people to help others. I'd be willing to bet that there have been at least one person that has committed suicide and has read the Suicide article beforehand, and could have been helped with just a little compassion and just a single line that tells them that there is someone out there that cares. If we can save just one life, the policies don't matter. Just my 2 cents. andritolion (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would question the effectiveness of such disclaimers. The Hellenic Army has in recent years created its own suicide line, trying to reduce its chronic issues with drafted soldiers committing suicide. It has not done much to reduce the reasons for suicide, such as the poverty of the soldiers (the monthly payment for a Greek soldier in 2019 is 8.70 euros, equivalent to 9.76 American dollars), the isolation of soldiers from their families and friends, or the lack of treatment for their health problems The suicide rate in Greece (526 suicides per average year) has increased in recent years, despite the availability of suicide lines. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Dimadick: I'm not an expert on the subject so wouldn't wish to comment on the efficacy of disclaimers. Perhaps it would be worth asking an organisation such as the Samaritans who would know more about this sort of thing for their views? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think that asking an organisation such as the Samaritans would be helpful. I have no doubt that their volunteers have the best interests of suicidal people at their hearts, but they are not the best people to judge their own effectiveness. It is best for us to follow robust independent academic research. I haven't looked into such research, so it may or may not conclude that suicide helplines are effective, but any decision should be based on such research rather than on anecdotal evidence or intuition, which seems to be all that has been offered in this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a hat note link to List of Suicide crisis lines. Wikipedia exists in the real world and a meta study of suicide prevention suggested that we don't know if these lines are effective or not. But it also appears its not harmful. And the inclusion of a single hatnote is not harmful to Wikipedia. So this low cost way is not harmful and might beneficial to our readers. Further, suicide ideation is inherently different from drug addiction and so those analogies just don't hold water for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • We should not simply reject this on the basis of WP:NODISCLAIMERS. That is a guideline that was created by Wikipedia editors, and we can choose as Wikipedia editors to make an exception in this case. There is no ancient wisdom that was possessed by those who wrote the guideline but not by us. I do, however, have strong doubts as to whether it will actually achieve anything. As well as the issue of whether crisis lines actually prevent suicide, there is also the issue of whether telling someone about such lines actually leads to people using them when they wouldn't otherwise have done so. It is just possible that such directions could cause active harm. Any decision about this should ideally be based on robust academic research, rather than the gut feeling that we should do something. When it comes to human psychology intuition is often wrong. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I am meh with regards to a note of the form For agencies offering couselling about the subject see..., which is (or, at least disguised as) a navigational aid. But I'm strongly opposed to any hatnote of the form If you’re thinking about suicide, it’s important to know that you’re not alone. See... that directly addresses the reader and offers them life-advice; that goes against WP:ENC (fwiw, see also EB's article on suicide).
More broadly, my main two concerns regarding adding any hatnote are (1) the slippery-slope argument that Moxy has alluded to (where do we stop offering links to "helpful" resources: mental traumas, mental disorders, physical diseases, natural disasters, general trigger warnings ...?) and (2) the ineffectiveness argument mentioned by Dimadick (would the hatnote do anything except make us feel good about ourselves for doing something?). I'd like to see some thought-out arguments against those objections before I can support making an exception to WP:NODISCLAIMERS. Abecedare (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would support Abecedare's example text here [4], since that is a genuine navigational aid to something related that people could be looking for. But anything more aggressive than that shouldn't be added to the article without some evidence that it might actually help. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose First of all the best avaliable evidence does not show a benefit in decreasing the risk of suicide. Here we have a 2016 review article in Lancet Psychiatry that says hotlines are of unclear benefit.[5] There are things we know that do work such as removing guns and other easily methods of suicide from the home. So if we are going to put a hatnote on the page it should contain advice that is better supported. Second why was this raised here on July 19th without notifying the talk page of suicide? This discussion has occurred lots of times there. For those who support this what is the evidence of benefit? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Here is the full reference Zalsman, G; Hawton, K; Wasserman, D; van Heeringen, K; Arensman, E; Sarchiapone, M; Carli, V; Höschl, C; Barzilay, R; Balazs, J; Purebl, G; Kahn, JP; Sáiz, PA; Lipsicas, CB; Bobes, J; Cozman, D; Hegerl, U; Zohar, J (July 2016). "Suicide prevention strategies revisited: 10-year systematic review". The Lancet. Psychiatry. 3 (7): 646–59. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30030-X. PMID 27289303.
    I would support linking to helplines and ignoring all rules if there was evidence that such help lines work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Should we have a hatnote which recommends that people remove potential methods of suicide from the environment of those who are suicidal? At least that is known to be effective. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Hi all. I’m one of the lawyers at the Wikimedia Foundation, and I work in particular on issues related to threats of harm and similar risks. We’ve had a number of cases where people working on Wikipedia have contacted us because of threats of suicide to provide help for them, and one of my colleagues flagged this discussion to me. I think this is an important issue and I hope I can be helpful by sharing some sources that we’ve looked at and offering my thoughts on the matter based on what I’ve seen in dealing with suicide-related topics on Wikipedia.
I support a community addition of a message at the top that lets people reading the article know about resources that might be available to them if they’re considering suicide. It’s likely that a significant share of the population that looks into topics like suicide and suicide methods are doing so because they are considering suicide. I and a number of my colleagues believe that links to resources for seeking help do lead to saving lives, and a couple of the sources cited below provide some information on how these sorts of resource links have worked.
I would also note that as a matter of best practices, other online platforms that host user contributions, as well as a number of organizations that work to prevent suicide, recommend banners or similar notices to assist people. While Wikipedia is not quite like any other website, I think the way that people use it to search for information about difficult topics means that can be helpful to apply these best practices for suicide-related topics.
Wikipedia articles also appear prominently in search results related to suicide. I’ve linked a couple examples below: about 5,000 thousand people a day view the Wikipedia article on suicide, and 9,000 a day view the suicide methods article. So, changes that might have a small statistical effect can have a significant impact in practice.
Studies
Pageviews:
Industry and help group recommendation pages
-Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Would this put the WMF in a position where they may be liable for directing thousands of people to a third party for advice? Any liability issues per Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act? We currently say Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer " Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine." Wikipedia:General disclaimer "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area."--Moxy 🍁 07:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't see a link to helpful resources as a source of liability for the WMF, even if we were seen as the publisher (which we probably would not be if the community put up a banner). It's an attempt to be helpful to people, in line with the way many websites show information about the topic of suicide, and recommended by specialists who work on the issue. Imo, it's a positive thing if Wikipedia takes into account situations where certain information can harm some readers and offers other information that can help mitigate that harm. And I think suicide is a sensitive and unique enough topic that it would be a good place for a special exception to the general rules discouraging banners. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Nitpick: It’s likely that a significant share of the population that looks into topics like suicide and suicide methods are doing so because they are considering suicide. reeks of the base rate fallacy (very few people are considering suicide, so even though the proportion of such people among readers of the suicide page is higher than in the general population, it may still be very low). TigraanClick here to contact me 15:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Opppose Seriously, how many times have we gone over that we haveno disclaimers in articles? I understand that it may help people, but that's not what Wikipedia is designed to do. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 07:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC) Everyone here has convinced me.... I weakly Support a proposal like the one described in the section below referring to suicide prevention. It retains NPOV while still giving users access to resources which may help them. It also is possible that someone who typed in "suicide" is looking for "suicide prevention", so I think it's okay. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 01:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Want to clarify that I oppose this proposal, but support the alternate. Do not count me as support.-- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    NODISCLAIMERS is a guideline rather than a policy, which means we can use our discretion. If it may help people, perhaps we should do it? Richard Nevell (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    I mean, there are plenty of things which could help people that we don't do. Trigger warnings in articles involving traumatic things could help people, but we don't do that. What about a rape crisis hatnote for the article on rape? Or a hatnote for the article on homicide telling people not to do it? Censoring images could help people too, after all, an image of suicide could cause people to become more suicidal, and a disturbing image could haunt someone for a lifetime. Where does it end? Rockstonetalk to me! 07:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
    Comment If we DID have some type of disclaimer, I'd be OK with it being something like:
This page is about the cause of death. For the medical emergency, see Suicide crisis. For other uses, see Suicide (disambiguation).
But that's about the extent that I think it should go. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 17:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not concerned by slipper slope arguments, and rarely am, for the reasons at slippery slope. Notably, this quote from an intro logic text book: The strength of the argument depends on two factors. The first is the strength of each link in the causal chain; the argument cannot be stronger than its weakest link. The second is the number of links; the more links there are, the more likely it is that other factors could alter the consequences. It's not particularly clear that if we add a hatnote we will be required or even strongly compelled to add similar notes to similar articles; there's not a strong link between each event in the slippery slope. The number of decisions required to reach the bottom of our slope is conceptually very large, we won't devolve into hatnoting The Sorrows of Young Werther with links to mental health resources in one or two steps, and likely never will, because we have WP:COMMONSENSE that people in crisis are most likely going to read suicide and suicide methods not some random other page. Such hatnotes are unlikely to be useful on other topics like mental illness in general or even rape because while similarly weighty, they are not nearly as time sensitive nor do we have particularly well developed encyclopedic content to which we can redirect a reader (we don't have a List of doctors in your area and services for survivors of sexual assault are incredibly variable between jurisdictions). Wug·a·po·des​ 21:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
You say that none of the five standard disclaimers cover the disclaimer being proposed here, that's not true. It literally says in the risk disclaimer that Many articles contain frank discussion of controversial topics of which suicide is a controversial topic and falls under that category. Wikipedia is not meant to help people, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. Whether or not that encyclopedia helps people is completely irrelevant. It is a collection of encyclopedic content, while this proposed hatnote is not encyclopedic at all. You will not see other encyclopedias linking to such resources or providing a disclaimer. I strongly oppose adding a disclaimer to the topic of this article, especially as a hatnote. In all honesty, if we have to add any type of disclaimer, it would be better as a banner which does not impede the encyclopedic content of the page, and one which could be minimized.
The slippery slope argument is not a fallacy, because it is not a stretch to imagine that other controversial topics may require such a hatnote. For example, the article on mass shootings is one such article that I almost certainly forsee having a hatnote if this proposal comes to pass, because this too is a form of suicide. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt that suicide was meant to fall under "frank discussions of controversial topics" because if asked to name 10 "controversial topics", few, if anyone, would have suicide on that list. We've had more controversy over infobox colors. Further, the hatnote isn't warning people about content, it's directing them to other pages they may in fact be looking for. Wikipedia is not meant to help people, Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia this is what I mean by absurd; what do you think is the purpose of an encyclopedia? If a reader comes here looking for information and they don't find it, is that a success to you because we didn't help them find the information they were looking for? We consider what is helpful for readers constantly because that's how any good publication makes editorial decisions. We care about helping our readers find information, so linking them to encyclopedic articles we already have is not some wildly unencyclopedic thing to do.
the article on mass shootings is one such article that I almost certainly forsee having a hatnote if this proposal comes to pass This is also absurd. "Because it is a form of suicide" is not a sufficiently strong link for the reasons I gave above. Lots of things are forms of suicide; fire is a form of suicide but I doubt we'll put a warning there because there is no sensible reason why someone looking for List of suicide crisis lines would wind up at fire (or mass shootings), but there is a completely obvious reason why someone looking for that article would wind up at suicide or suicide methods. If you legitimately think the next logical step is putting hatnotes on things simply because [it] too is a form of suicide, then I really can't help you because that sounds patently absurd. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
It is in fact true that our common goal is building an encyclopedia, not helping people. If someone thinks building a free comprehensive neutral encyclopedia would help people, and they like helping people and therefore want to participate, they're welcome here. If someone thinks that improving such an encyclopedia will harm people, and wants to harm people and so wants to participate in a helpful manner, they're welcome too. If someone wants to help people and thinks helping people will be accomplished by wrecking the encyclopedia, they're not welcome to do that. And of course, some people are just here to have fun, or improve the world (according to their worldview), or think of information or freedom as an end-goal, and they're also welcome to helpfully contribute. I realize this isn't super motivational to those of us who are here to help people, but what can you do... --Yair rand (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a substantial difference between what my purpose as an editor is (building an encyclopedia) and what the purpose of an encyclopedia is (providing readers with information). Compare the difference between WP:HERE and WP:PURPOSE, the latter of which explicitly says Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • If a reader comes here looking for information and they don't find it, is that a success to you because we didn't help them find the information they were looking for?: It entirely depends on what information the reader is looking to find, for example if a reader is looking for information on how to do something, then they should not expect to find it here, similarly if a reader is looking for advice, then they're in the wrong place. In both cases, failure to find this information is a success to me, because advice and how to guides are both not the purpose of this project. Wikipedia is not a collection of information, even if cited, it is only a collection of information which is of an encyclopedic nature. Finding any particular set of information is not the purpose of Wikipedia. So no, not all information that a reader might be seeking should be found here and in many cases failure to find it is a success. To the extent that we do care about helping our readers find information, we use the "see also" section of articles. I would not be opposed (in fact, I'd strongly support) references to suicide hotlines and resources in the "see also" section of the page (which we don't have right now). -- Rockstonetalk to me! 23:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I am glad that you seem to be entertaining the idea that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to benefit readers. You're right that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to contain everything, but we do help find them find encyclopedic information (because we are an encyclopedia after all). Moving on, we in fact, do have encyclopedic coverage of these topics, like List of suicide crisis lines which I have linked above many times, and we do place navigational aids, called WP:HATNOTES, at the top of pages: Hatnotes are short notes placed at the very top of an article or a section, like a hat is placed on the very top of a head....Their purpose is to help readers locate a different article if the one they are at is not the one they're looking for. Wug·a·po·des​ 23:41, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I am aware of the purpose of hatnotes, however they are for things which reasonably could require disambiguation. Very few people looking for list of suicide crisis lines will end up in suicide instead, and very few people looking for suicide will not see a disclaimer before getting there. All the major search engines provide one. Someone who types suicide into Wikipedia is wanting an article on suicide, not information about crisis hotlines. It's not helpful. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 01:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
There are plenty of links from the suicide article to suicide crisis lines article. A hatnote is undue weight for something that is of unclear benefit. I could support an "ignore all rules" if there was evidence of benefit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The World Health Organization guidance for media professionals reporting on suicide recommends that information regarding crisis lines be included in media reports. While I appreciate you're much more able to evaluate primary sources than I am, the best evidence I have is that the professionals who compiled the World Health Organization's guidance believe it is helpful enough to recommend that journalists always include them in reports. As for whether it is undue or an unlikely alternative target, I weight the costs and benefits differently. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Was not a primary source I was quoting but a review of the topic in question published by the Lancet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The WHO document says "Information about support resources should be provided at the end of all stories about suicide. The specific resources should include suicide prevention centres, crisis helplines, other health and welfare professionals..."

A few things, our article on suicide is not a "story" about an individual who committed suicide. We do already link to Crisis hotlines 4 times in that article which provides a list of numbers. [User:Wugapodes]] was that the passage you were referring too? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Doc James. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Doc J. --Izno (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I support but I also have some requests. We in the Wikimedia community have values and rules. We do not make exceptions lightly. We do have a process for exceptions, and it typically involves making a case and sorting some documentation. This issue of a suicide notice is not just an English Wikipedia issue, but an issue for all languages of Wikipedias and for our platform as a model for behavior in online spaces in general. This proposal is fairly disorganized to this point. Considering the seriousness of the issue and that putting a notice on a page is an exceptional and unusual thing to do which will have major and unpredictable consequences, I advocate to raise this issue from a casual discussion to a moderately organized discussion. I do not think this is so contentious that we need to invest the resources to make the best case and documentation that we can, but I do think that the issue merits some moderate amount of documentation. To implement this with the documentation we have now seems likely to cause various problems and we should mitigate that with some advance planning in the Wikimedia community. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    The English Wikipedia does not make decisions for other Wikipedias, and the different projects don't make content decisions like this collectively. --Yair rand (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Bluerasberry: this is primarily an editorial decision, so each project will have their own discretion on this, it would take an office action if they wanted to force disclaimers or other banners on articles based on their content - something I'd expect large projects (like here) to have major resistance too. — xaosflux Talk 22:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    English Wikipedia makes decisions with authority over government process about what information citizens can and cannot access. I know we have been doing this for about 20 years but our having this media influence is still a new and unusual power to wield. With English Wikipedia outranking most governments it also has overbearing influence on what other language Wikipedias do, especially in matters of global citizenship like this one. I recognize the idealism of having a community run process for every language Wikipedia community, and I do respect any organized attempts by other languages and Wikimedia projects to assert their own rules. When communities do not organize then all kinds of global defaults come to them. For various reasons this discussion here and now seems unusual to me for being more likely than most other discussions here to be a pilot for global change in Wikimedia projects and to present to every other online platform. If the wiki community decides that notices like this are useful then we have respect and standing to tell everyone else in the world that this is the norm. I could be mistaken, and what I am describing may not be the stakes, but my intuition is that this is a situation where English Wikipedia has power to issue a global cultural mandate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support If we can save one life with a brief blurb at the top, it's worth it. I'm personally familiar with people who have used the hotlines, and they have been beneficial. Really don't understand the opposition here - if you're not suicidal, it doesn't impact you, and if you are, there's a chance it could help. SportingFlyer T·C 22:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It does impact people who are not suicidal, as it suddenly makes Wikipedia appear no longer neutral. There are plenty of things that "could help" that we don't do. Like I said earlier, having a link to rape crisis hotlines on the rape article "could help" as well, but we don't do that. For what it is worth, I agree with User:Bluerasberry that we should attempt to get wider community input, particularly because adding such a disclaimer will be disruptive. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
My other arguments from the other RFC Whilst we're here to make an encyclopaedia, and the link to suicide crisis lines is arguably unencyclopedic from this article, this is definitely an ethically challenging area. I would strongly support for this article inclusion, especially as Wikipedia is not censored and the suicide methods article may have obvious unintended consequences. Also I note that WP:IAR is improving or maintaining Wikipedia with no mention of Wikipedia being an encyclopaedia. Inclusion clearly violates even WP:HERE and everything else, but in this page I think all are overridden. and also re: evidence I think its one of those areas of medicine that will never really have good evidence. If evidence is shown in one study, worldwide generalisability is poor. Theres little evidence in risk assessment for suicide as well. It is common practice to link to crisis lines, despite the lack of evidence, I think we should do the same. --[E.3][chat2][me]
  • Support per Jrogers. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose' this particular proposal. There is no point in linking to any particular site, especially one of doubtful efficacy. the argument "It is the only thing that can possibly work" is in defiance of WP:V. and WP:OR and WP:MEDRS. We shouldn't be sending people o places where here is no evidence of effectiveness. "This is a problem. Something must be done. This claims to be some thing. We must do it. The discussions at the other location, mentioned below, make much more sense. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support We use disclaimers on talk pages, what's the harm in including one right at the forefront of the main article? Especially when it isn't there to clutter but potentially could help someone. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. Support It's a sensible action and I think the case can be reasonably made that it 'makes the encyclopedia better'. Also support the more conservative compromise wording proposal below that is more within wikipedia norms. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the same grounds as at the very similar RFC here. Gimubrc (talk) 14:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support seems an obvious necessity to help those in need, one article in the Lancet is not enough to dissuade Atlantic306 (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the proposal is a little vague. How should the notice ('disclaimer') appear and what, specifically, should it say? The lead section of Suicide doesn't mention prevention at all. Perhaps one way forward is to add a paragraph at the end of it introducing the idea of suicide prevention, noting some of the key organisations that support it and linking to relevant Wikipedia articles. Adding direct links to e.g. hotlines would be a well-meant departure from the usual Wikipedia style. I support the idea behind it, I'm just wondering what the best way of achieving the goal is.
I also think that objections based on WP:NODISCLAIMERS are misguided. That guideline frames itself as being about swearing, 'adult content' and spoilers. A notice of some form aimed at preventing readers' own suicide, on a page explicitly about suicide, is a long way away from that kind of sensitivity concern. Doc James's opposition is different, but I would ask it the other way around - is there evidence that pointing people towards services intended to help is harmful? "Unclear benefit" doesn't strike me as a good reason not to try something. I've supported the Doc's proposal below separately. › Mortee talk 01:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference. I don't have access to the full paper and the abstract balances "occasionally unacceptable responses occur" against "some lives may have been saved". The eleven calls in your first quote sound terrible, though out of 2,611 calls monitored that's 0.42%, and in those cases attempts were already in progress. Clearly policy around guns, drugs and mental health are far more important, but those are out of our hands. I'm still ambivalent about the idea of a hatnote and haven't !voted on it. Mentioning suicide prevention in the lead one way or another may be less contentious and also worthwhile. › Mortee talk 13:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support It may coincide with some of our policies, but we are talking about life and death here. If we can add a small sentence or disclaimer, it could save lives. Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I think Jrogers lays out a strong case, and others have already made the point that this is absolutely an appropriate place to diverge from general practice on the encyclopedia. Ralbegen (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Most convinced by Jrogers' reminder that linking to relevant mental health resources (whatever they may be) is already standard journalistic practice and recommended by the WHO. Note should be brief and as neutral as possible. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 01:40, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes! Yes! Let's Do This! I have a collection of notices ready for articles on ADDICTION of {name any} DRUG; the consequences of ABORTION; problems with PROMISCUITY; the dangers of using TRAFFIC CIRCLES; why one shouldn't ICE FISH, and more. Text me for the exhaustive list!!! GenQuest "Talk to Me" 03:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support a short hatnote to point to meta:Mental health resources. Not one linking to other on-wiki articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose A static notice at the top of the page is unlikely to change anyone's mind about suicide if they are actively thinking about doing so. Furthermore even if it was added to this article and not others (such as Hanging (don't hang yourself), Murder (Murdering people is wrong), or any illegal drugs) would this not put the WMF/Wikipedia in a tricky legal situation? Sakura CarteletTalk 21:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Link to the general topic of suicide prevention rather than one specifically and poorly supported measure. Something like
This page is about the cause of death. For information on prevention, see suicide prevention. For other uses, see Suicide (disambiguation).
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Per User:Banana Republic I could support something along the lines of If you're considering suicide, please visit suicide prevention. This would prevent us from giving undue weight to crises hotlines when other methods have better support. That article will need improvement but happy to work on that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that. I quoted andritolion, who did suggest that. I suggested "For suicide prevention, see ...." whatever the appropriate article would be. I wanted to de-personalize the hatnote, to make it more neutral. In general, the word "you" should not appear in the article space. Banana Republic (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
How about something like:
This page is about the cause of death. For information on suicide prevention, see suicide prevention. For other uses, see Suicide (disambiguation).
?-- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
An even better idea than what I proposed. Banana Republic (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, I would support something like that. This would retain NPOV while giving users who are suicidal the opportunity to read an article that may help them without being preachy or breaking encyclopedic standards. I've changed my Oppose to a weak Support above.-- Rockstonetalk to me! 01:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure would support User:Rockstone35 proposal. Have adjusted mine to reflect it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Several studies have documented specific caller benefits during and after crisis line contact. These include:

  1. Changes in the callers’ crisis state or suicidality during the call;
  2. Resourcing for improved crisis management such as the development of action
  3. plans and the provision of referrals and
  4. Flow-on benefits after the call, as assessed in caller follow-up.

Overall, these studies provide promising, if preliminary, evidence that the participating crisis lines did deliver outcomes consistent with their goals of providing crisis support and reducing immediate risk of suicide. They also demonstrate how research can identify areas that need addressing to increase helper competencies and enable service improvement.

Furthermore, if you extend the paucity of evidence argument I have not heard of any evidence to link a suicidal person to how society manages suicidal intervention and prevention (linking suicidal people to help appears to be to be the main thought behind the WP:IAR in this proposal). If that suicidal person doesn't have access to those preventative measures, such as being in a remote area or low income nation, it could in my limited opinion could also have unintended consequences as well and I would strongly suggest a suicidal prevention expert's input here. I certainly prefer weak evidence and expert opinion/common practice (ie. to crisis lines) to what might have no evidence. Also if this second hatnote has consensus suicide prevention and suicide intervention needs a far more global viewpoint / rewrite. --[E.3][chat2][me] 19:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I have started an RFC at: Talk:Suicide methods#RFC: Hatnote at top. I have not been following this one as much, but users here may be interested in it. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Study the effect of linking to a crises number

Would support the idea of linking to a crises number as part of a research trial. With respect to study design we could look at having "crises numbers" present in odd months one year and even months the next. This would allow the comparison between the same months between the two years. We could have the number present to all IPs from the UK. The primary end point would be change in suicides in each pair of months in the UK, with secondary outcomes being total calls to the crises hotline we are linking. This would move knowledge on this topic forwards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the encylopedia should be a mechanism for an external social experiment. (c.f. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_laboratory) — xaosflux Talk 13:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, I don't think we should display different article content to readers based on their IP address. — xaosflux Talk 13:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Support but prefer a larger sample size. The UK has about 5,000 people dying by suicide a year, of which only so many will be visiting Wikipedia during their crisis. Presenting a specific number in the hatnote would make it less neutral but (as you say) give us a clear secondary measure. WP:NOTLAB doesn't preclude the idea, especially if we're just trying measure the efficacy of the note and not helplines in general. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (suicide disclaimer)

While from a humanitarian point of view this is an admirable suggestion, even supported by one or more WMF lawyers, but as mentioned there could certainly be unintended consequences. Some editors may apparently rarely be concerned with a Slippery slope argument, but it is prudent to consider what might happen after opening a can of worms. The guideline Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles would be rescinded. This means that a well intended editor, possibly an advocate for not smoking, would have arguments (of course not WP:OTHERSTUFF) for placing a warning or health advisory disclaimer or hatnote on Cigarette. Other examples are offered by Sakura Cartelet and we can certainly request an expanded list from GenQuest.
Concerns about WMF legal liability were rebutted by one of their lawyers (Jrogers (WMF) stating that if the "community" were to implement this type of change it would mitigate WMF legal concerns. I can not imagine providing a "disclaimer" would result in litigation. However, this is not actually about placing a disclaimer but a notice or banner to potentially aid in suicide prevention. This is a very noble "cause". There are literally thousands of individuals and organizations that would be interested in using "banners" for humanitarian efforts, warnings, or as potential aids for some cause.
Then we have the battle that would ensue should a majority here decide to implement this. As a "proposal" we could provide consensus to implement a guideline change but when the dust settles this will not be just about a template, banner, or hatnote on Suicide. It will not take long before an editor with good intentions will decide Murder, Mass shooting, Massacre and other violence related articles need such a banner. We will then gain a sub-project so that all such articles could be covered.
Is this far-fetched? Not even close, but merely a matter of time, and why the slippery slope thought should be at least considered.
The best option from an editorial point of view would be Alternative proposal above. This would not entail changing established long-standing consensus, opening more than one can of worms, and provide a solution that would reflect article consensus on inclusion and be more encyclopedic. A problem is many that might support this, over the original proposal, already !voting, may not watch this page. Otr500 (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Aside from some very good reasoning on the part of dissenters here (studies showing ineffectiveness, problems with determining whether or not these "help lines" are really any good at what they claim to do, slippery slope, etc.)...I wonder about the value judgment we would be imposing here. There are many countries now that have legislated authorization for assisted suicide; are we suggesting that these countries are wrong to do that? Are we imposing our own values in assuming that suicide is always a bad thing to do? I'm not going to take a formal position on this, but I genuinely worry about the level of activism that is coming out of the WMF (note that WMF staff have proposed a session about this very subject at Wikiconference North America). Risker (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, but I mean the Wikipedia is basically a humanist entity. We're not here to make money. We're not here to expand the hegonomy of any country. We're not here to make art for art's sake. We are supposedly here to do a small good thing: make a free encyclopedia. We carry a lot of value judgements into that, basically the values of the Enlightenment: we value objective observation over argument from authority, and so on and so forth. And "humanism" -- that is, the valorization of human beings as opposed over, say, any church or country or company or what have you -- is a key part of that.
So yeah, on a technical level I'm willing to listen to arguments along the lines of "this is actually counter-productive". If a winning argument can be made that having a disclaimer will result in more net suffering -- more appropriate suicides prevented than inappropriate ones -- then fine (altho, good luck with that). But aarguments along the lines of "well, we shouldn't judge that 'life' is somehow better than 'death'" or similar are not going to gain much traction with me or a lot of other people. Declining to make a moral judgement about something is a moral judgement, and you can't escape that. Herostratus (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
That's... No, that's incredibly wrong. There are endless different ideologies that would find building a free encyclopedia to be furthering what they value, and Wikipedia doesn't take on the voice of any of them. (Most ideologies tend to identify all good-identified things with themselves. "Bonapartism is good, poverty is bad, therefore abolishing poverty is inherently a Bonapartist action!", with some more rationalisations added on top. "Creating a free encyclopedia is creating good for the nation! It's impossible for it to be anything but nationalist!") Wikipedia does not make any moral judgements, and declining to make a moral judgement is certainly not a moral judgement itself, any more than declining to make a culinary judgement is a culinary judgement itself. Wikipedia does not tell people whether murder is good or bad, it doesn't ever tells anyone to do anything. It doesn't speak in a particularly human voice, nor does it ever even acknowledge the reader's existence. We editors have our own (often conflicting) moral systems, but we do not place that directly into the content, ever. One editor can be a member of the VHEM, another could be a radical communist, another could be an Objectivist and another could be a nihilist. All can participate, but none can violate NPOV and make value judgements inside the content of articles. --Yair rand (talk) 06:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deterioration and Continuation of Portals discussion

Please note, let's make sure that this ongoing discussion does not deteriorate by losing participation at the new pages where these topics are continuing.

discussion of this important topic is continuing at the following talk pages. Various questions are being raised there.

Please note; editors are also free to add comments here, i.e. right here in this section on this page. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Block edits that contain a VisualEditor bug

There is a consensus for this proposal:

The RfC is to establish consensus for a new Edit filter to block further edits containing the bug. The block will contain a message instructing editors not to copy-paste wikitext text unless in edit-mode due to a bug in VisualEditor.

This may be implemented if the bug is still happening. However, there is some disagreement in the "Discussion" subsection about whether this was still happening, so I recommend further discussion and confirmation before implementing this.

Cunard (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

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

VisualEditor has a particularly devilish bug that is snagging newbies and experts alike, and impacting a dozen+ articles a day.

Example diff from See of Tyre

Note the <sup>[[Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Tyre#cite%20note-FOOTNOTEHamilton2016409-13|[13]]]</sup>. This should be cite #13 from the article Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Tyre as of the date the revision at See of Tyre was made. When the editor copy-pasted the citation in non-edit mode, it got transformed into this garbage string. Another interpreted available here.

A couple things about this bug:

  • It is unknown when the VE team will fix this bug.
  • It impacts not only citations: example cleanup edit
  • A log of cases is available here
  • I wrote a bot vebug bot to "fix" these cases as seen here.
  • The bot is not fail-proof or fully automatic, there are ways for things to go wrong due to subtle complexities with revision histories, syntax of the bug, technical limitations of determining a citation by its number, etc. Thus the bot leaves a {{verify source}} with inline instructions for editors to manual check/fix the cite. It moves the process forward, but is not a total resolution. Only manual work can fully verify.

Proposal: The RfC is to establish consensus for a new Edit filter to block further edits containing the bug. The block will contain a message instructing editors not to copy-paste wikitext text unless in edit-mode due to a bug in VisualEditor. -- GreenC 23:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support as nom and seed survey section. -- GreenC 23:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as a gnome who has to clean up this stuff. It is not the editors' fault that they are doing something permissible using a tool that is still in beta, but we need a way to prevent this junk from breaking articles, along with a friendly error message explaining the current workaround.
  • Support Permitting edits that can result in data corruption is not a good thing. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Iffy... there's a bot in the works to fix those... if the bot is speedy enough, I'm not sure it's worth blocking people from making edits that are bugged through not fault of theirs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I wrote the bot. The bot does triage but the cites are not "fixed", they still need manual intervention to verify. It turns a big mess into a little mess. This problem is not 100% fixable by bot. And the bot requires manual work as there are things it can't resolve at all. The block will instruct users what to do there won't be much lost. More lost by not blocking. -- GreenC 02:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Some still getting through [6][7] let's wait a bit before closing this RfC, not sure yet. They could be copy-pasted from old diffs or user/draft space, or some other way. -- GreenC 14:12, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

  • #cite%20note- is the string that is common among all the variations of the bug. I requested the log filter be adjusted for only this string, so we can see if there are false positives. If there are, some ideas how to narrow it down with a much more complex set of possibilities based on what the bot is discovering. Some examples:
  • <sup>[[User:Claudia Diaz2/sandbox#cite%20note-5|[6]]<nowiki>]</nowiki>
  • [[Politics of Venezuela#cite%20note-19|<sup>[1</sup>]]
  • <sup>[[User:Claudia Diaz2/sandbox#cite%20note-5|<nowiki>6]]]</nowiki>
  • [[2017 Women's March#cite%20note-FT%20100%2C000-13|<span>[13]</span>]]
There are many more variations. The sup's might be span's, etc. -- GreenC 01:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

"It is unknown when the VE team will fix this bug". Can someone link to the bug report please ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 07:39, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

This issue was first raised in 2016 and was fixed within 3 days. As TheDJ points out, before stating "It is unknown when the VE team will fix this bug." it might help to tell us about the problem first ;) Anyway it seems this regressed recently during a refactor, and has now been fixed again. The fix should be deployed next Thursday is now deployed. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Now deployed early. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC))
Thank you. I was given the impression this bug was known and people were manually fixing the errors until it got fixed and that it was a long-standing issue. That it might never get fixed. Probably a cognitive merger with the 2016 event and those mangled cites from 2016 never got repaired. I'm glad you have nullified the need for this RfC, I will keep it open for a little longer while the edit filter log verifies no more problems. -- GreenC 05:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
404 error

I just tested this. I copied the same paragraph from Wikipedia as I did for my original demonstration of this issue at User:Rhododendrites/sandbox and User:Rhododendrites/sandbox1. This time I copied the same paragraph into User:Rhododendrites/sandbox2, but when I went to save it popped up HTTP 404, with only a button to dismiss... This obviously means the problematic text isn't added, but I can't imagine this is the intended behavior. It seems like the intended behavior is that it simply strips out those broken references. That doesn't seem ideal either. That just leaves people wondering where their refs went. This seems common enough that an edit filter may still be useful to say "hey, it looks like you weren't in edit mode when you copied this text". — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I can't reproduce this error, is this happening repeatedly and reliably for you? That error could be caused by a number of unrelated issues... ESanders (WMF) (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
ESanders (WMF), it is still happening though under what conditions unknown. Perhaps copy-paste between tabs (in certain browsers), or between different language wikis, or copy from an old revision screen, close that screen and paste into a new screen. Just guessing. -- GreenC 01:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Most of the diffs in that list are unrelated to the bug. There is maybe one per day that is, but is most likely people using code cached from last week. Using old revisions or separate tabs shouldn't be a problem, and I've tested in FF, Chrome, IE11 and copying between those. Let's just wait another week and see if there are still new cases. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
ESanders (WMF): The bug is still happening. [8] -- GreenC 04:51, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Excluding false positives it's about once per day, which could still be just cached code or saved edit sessions. If you want to investigate further, you could get in touch with the users making these edits and try to make the error reproduceable. ESanders (WMF) (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites, ESanders (WMF), and GreenC: I believe the HTTP 404 error you are experiencing is related to phab:T233127 and the parent phab:T233320. If not, I apologise for the confusion in advance as we're not really sure what's causing the HTTP 404 error regarding those tasks. —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Controversial Working Group Recommendations

The 2nd generation of working group recommendations has been released on for consultation on meta. Each WG has around 10 recommendations, but I've attempted to include the most key and/or controversial one of each group below. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The include draft recommendations on:

  • Unified Code of Conduct across all projects
  • Limits on holding multiple positions/term limits
  • Decentralising technical development
  • Broader and most co-ordinated advocacy
  • Restructuring of Wikimedia resource allocation and creation of thematic hubs
  • Use of revenue-creating Wikimedia API/paid wiki services/alternate revenue streams
  • Governance and restructuring of Wikimedia movement organisations
Advocacy, thematic hubs and money-making amongst them. Clear suggestion to politicise etc the movement. This will be fun. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I expect quite a battle over the recommendation to change notability and reliability standards. Very controversial. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Blueboar, Where is the recommendation to change notability and reliability standards? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
It's here m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Sprint/Diversity/8. Fortunately, these are simply working groups. Until WMF comes down with a resolution to force some of these changes across all wikiprojects, we can only consider this guidance but not absolutes. Too many of their recommendations are against long-standing policies likes V and RS. --Masem (t) 15:37, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
On the other hand, it's good to give feedback now instead of waiting until the decision-makers have already made a decision. It might prevent them from making a bad decision. Or at least it would make it harder for them to claim they didn't see enough opposition. Anomie⚔ 21:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
The workflow was that the recommendations of the working groups (after the Tunis meeting) are "up to community consultation" and then go straight to the board. Since WMF routinely ignores the community voices, and sometimes misreprents them and lies to the board, one could expect the recommendations to go to the board more or less as posted now. Except for there is so much noise (including some in the media) that they will be more anxious about blanket approval.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
No, I was wrong. These were recommendations before the Tunis meeting, which were apparently posted for our information. The Tunis meeting failed to deliver any recommendations, and the core team will continue working on them and at some point in the bright future will deliver them and may be will even try to get the community feedback. I guess until this point we can forget about them.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
OMG… the absolutely hideous formatting of the list of recommendations doesn't exactly inspire confidence that this is coming from people with even a passing familiarity with how wikis are supposed to work (or websites, even). - dcljr (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is always making mountains out of molehills. These working groups are designed to generate discussions and focus on issues facing the movement, but they do not create binding actions which make any functional changes to the operation of any project. Take, for example, the most controversial proposals about relaxing standards of notability. It's not going to change how en.wikipedia works. It's not a reasonable recommendation, and it will not be implemented. However, what I do appreciate is that there is a working group thinking about the practical matters of expanding the movement's access to and coverage of material of importance to under-represented groups. Too often, "notability" is unevenly applied in ways that look like selective enforcement against specific classes of editors or specific types of articles. Sometimes, like when it's used to shut down obvious bullshit about people trying to build the career of their client "up-and-coming actress" or whatever, that's fine. But then we get stuff like when it's dragged out to delete articles about Nobel-prize winning scientists, it gives Wikipedia a bad look. On paper, notability is a fine standard. In practice, it can (and is) used in unseemly ways. I want a working group to be discussing ways to fix these problems, even if some of their ideas won't get put into practice. Even in these failures, the ideas generated from such groups has a better chance of coming up with a few good ideas that are sorely needed. --Jayron32 18:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Under rather unusual circumstances, and probably mistakenly, notability was used to delete a associate professor scientist who subsequently won a Nobel, at which point she of course got an article. Please don't spread misleading myths. Even Meghan Markle got deleted once, and quite right too. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The issue is that the "probably mistakenly" bit is "probably deliberately" only applied to certain classes of articles, and ignored in other places. It isn't the policy, it's the unseemly ways that notability is applied selectively. The unusual circumstances you note are only unusual in the way they happen consistently and predictably to make sure that some articles are deleted, and conveniently ignored with others. --Jayron32 13:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to change WP:CRYSTAL

Please see the WP:CRYSTAL RfC regarding a proposal to delete "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content" from WP:CRYSTAL. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language in human sex-specific articles

This proposal is clearly lacking consensus for implementing a bright-line rule. The MOS:GNL has a good summary already: the use of gender-neutral terms in articles is encouraged, but it is important to balance it with the need to maintain "clarity and precision". As outlined below, the terminology in articles, especially medical articles, is dependent upon the support of reliable sources and it is expected that editors would use the same terminology presented in said sources. That the English language has a large overlap in terminology for sex and gender distinction does not mean that the terminology can not be appropriately applied to the subjects at hand. — xaosflux Talk 13:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

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

I believe that articles relating discussion of topics that are sex-specific need gender-neutral language. Transgender, gender non-conforming and intersex people exist and these articles apply to them as well. For example, genderqueer people can and do undergo breast reduction surgery. Transgender woman can get prostate cancer. Having gender-neutral language would provide an accurate representation of the information it contains. It would also make some people who read these articles more comfortable with reading them, especially when it is a topic that affects them, and reduce incidence of dysphoria as a result of this. I also linked to this article when I posted about this on the Talk:Breast reduction and Talk:Mastopexy. I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia should follow MANA's guidelines, it simply explains why gender-neutral language is important, better than I can. I don't see the harm in switching to gender-neutral language here; confusion is unlikely to be generated as result from my perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalB404 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Wikipedia is not to push political agendas, and instead should follow common usage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not asking to right great wrongs here. It has been documented in mainstream media: link linklinkthat these people exist. It's not a tiny minority either as evidenced by this study and this and the fact that there are several places on Wikipedia (that I've just learned about) discussing neutral and inclusive language. To add to that, there are also *huge* amounts of previously under-documented gender non-conforming people appearing. Such as hijra in India, only recently recognised by the government but having existed for centuries. Mainstream awareness of transgender, gender non-conforming and intersex people is also increasing. Most people don't use gender-neutral language for these things, yes. But that's not because they are bigoted or even ignorant. Changing how we use language is a difficult process. But we can apply it in a way that would be acceptable as per Wikipedia's guidelines. People still use terms like "mankind" and "chairman", but Wikipedia tries not to. Using gender-neutral language doesn't have to be distracting or confusing. Using "patient" instead of "woman" or "them" instead of "she" is accepted in common english. Usage of the passive voice is very common on Wikipedia and it can be used to avoid excessive pronoun usage. We wouldn't be using it in a way to draw attention to terms not yet accepted (such as "people with x"). Although I personally hate using the term "females" to apply to humans, it would a more accurate use in many contexts. Like in the term "a woman's reproductive system" or "breasts of a woman" since wikipedia has clearly defined the term "female" to specifically mean an organism that has or had the ability to produce ova. MalB404 (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Also I fail to see how this is me trying to push a political agenda. Would you like to expand on that point? MalB404 (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Articles on biologic topics should use appropriate biologic language. Articles on cultural topics should use culturally appropriate language. Blueboar (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the rationale linked to by Crossroads. Basically, as long as MEDRS-type sources describing the medical facets of the human body use man/woman in talking gender-specific parts, we should not try to change that. As Blueboar states, cultural and societal topics are a different matter where that type of gender-neutral language is more common and thus we can follow that. --Masem (t) 13:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Masem. That summery has helped me understand better. I can see your point, but I still disagree. No point in going into why though, looks like the community has already made up its mind on the topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MalB404 (talk • contribs)
  • Followup comment as promised, even though so far this looks pretty dead. Here we go by what reliable sources say, with due weight. If you look at how reliable sources generally discuss reproductive systems (and breasts), they almost always do so in gendered terms. It is possible to find a few organizations or people who use neutral language even in this case, but they are actually few and far between. On top of that, we use plain English, and it is a matter of common sense that in typical usage, these body parts are gendered. As I said in my linked comment above (albeit more polemically than was perhaps advisable), this doesn't invalidate transgender people; they simply are exceptions to typical anatomy, no different than other people with atypical bodies. -Crossroads- (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per arguments made by Johnuniq, Adrian J. Hunter, Meters, Crossroads and myself in this discussion at Talk:Fingering (sexual act). Like I stated there, wording the Prostate and Vagina articles to be gender neutral, for example, is an extreme and detrimental position. It does not align with our WP:Neutral policy, which WP:Due is a part of. If we went by this line of thinking in the case of our anatomical, biological and medical articles, it would muddy the waters so much that the text would be useless in different respects. Where would we draw the line? How could we possibly say that there is no line, to the point that men and women (and girls and boys) are not mentioned at all? Readers should know that prostates belong to male anatomy, whether or not the person identifies as male and/or as a man. People should know that the vagina belongs to female anatomy, whether or not the person identifies as female and/or as a woman. Even if you say that we can retain "male anatomy" or "female anatomy" and still use wording like "people with prostates," the people with prostates are usually identified as men in reliable sources and they usually identify as men, and we should state so. Not have vague, awkward wording (such as "people with prostates") that will confuse readers. There is nothing precise about "people with prostates. Really, what valid counterargument is there that rewording the Vagina article to remove any mention, or most mentions, of girls and women is not erasing girls and women to a degree? The topic of the vagina primarily concerns/affects girls and women. All of the sources are about girls and women, from anatomy/physiology, to medical aspects, to societal/cultural aspects. And yet some want us to state "people with vaginas"? Who are these "people with vaginas"? It is vague, since it can refer to cisgender girls and women, transgender boys and men, transgender women with neovaginas, non-binary people, and intersex people. But, except for some of the sources on intersex people (which the Vagina article covers with due weight), none of the sources are talking about all of those other people (unless one were to say that some of them are not out about their gender identity). The sources are not talking about neovaginas. I see that MalB404 brought this here from a discussion at Talk:Human penis, where Ianmacm and Johnuniq weighed in and Johnuniq suggested the matter be brought here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:12, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - scientific text continues to use male and female when describing human sex-specific articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Certainly I don't think it's the best idea to be saying "women" everywhere in, for example, the breast reduction article, because it's easy to see how that article would also apply to trans men. We should take another look at our usage of that language. (We might also want to work on less clunky gender-neutral language, too.) Another point: I see some lines of reasoning based on common usage in medical sources. These articles may indeed have lots of medical content, but they can still be considered cultural and societal topics, so I don't think policy requires that we stay away from gender-neutral language that strongly. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Culture and society sources likewise overwhelmingly refer to reproductive organs and breasts in gendered terms. Based on the sources, there is nothing to "take another look" at. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm saying in the case I mentioned, it's incorrect to say "women". (The immediate response: "well, incorrect to whom?" People who support moving towards gender-neutral language.) Enterprisey (talk!) 06:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
    • It's not unheard of for breast reduction to apply to cis men, too; witness gynecomastia and pseudogynecomastia. Of course, all people (and, indeed, all mammals) have breasts; it's just that they only permanently grow in, primarily, human females, so that's what people tend to think of when it comes to breasts. I think the real issue is fundamental to the English language; we use the same terms to differentiate sex (a biological state) and gender (a psychological state), resulting in the problem that when people are trying to appropriately enforce the use of gender-neutral language, they may unintentionally start to overwrite the also-appropriate use of sex-specific language, unless close attention is paid to the context of the language involved. (And let's not even get into the issue of language of gendered connectors, or we'll be here all day...) rdfox 76 (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose, due to lack of specifics. In general, I strongly support use of gender-neutral language where relevant, and as such I take issue with some here who !voted oppose because inclusivity in language is not a mere “political agenda,” but rather it is the wave of the future. That said, words matter. Where articles are sex-specific, there is a need for specificity—and I see no link to a suggested list of the specific words being proposed. I make this point because some of the discussions elsewhere have engaged in some WP:OR in suggested wording, sometimes to the point of being just plain absurd, even insulting. Plus, this isn’t really the best place for this discussion; a place like MEDRS would bring a better perspective of how to discuss biology in ways that respect transgendered people and so on. Montanabw(talk) 06:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Gender neutrality is good (see WP:GENDER) but confusion is not: an example of the issue being discussed is this edit which made these changes: "stimulating the prostate in males those who have it ... the perineal sponge in women people with vaginas". Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think it is about pushing political agendas, but it is about pushing the envelope further than WP:MEDRS and other reliable sourcing. When people are writing on their own websites they can use whatever terminology they like, but Wikipedia articles must reflect the terminology found in mainstream sources that write about the subject matter. "People with vaginas" is currently a long way off from being a mainstream term for "Women"; as WP:SPADE says "It's not a "manual geomorphological modification implement", or an "individual tactical entrenchment excavator". Don't use circumlocution where plain language would be better.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:MEDRS; and call to close per SNOW. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 13:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Also per WP:MEDRS. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:MEDRS. At some point the scientific community might evolve and use more gender-neutral language, and then Wikipedia should catch up. Otherwise, it is not Wikipedia's business to define alternative anatomic language that deviates from reliable sources. --MarioGom (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for roughly every reason already given. Using GNL for topics that 99+% of the time pertain only to one sex would be massively confusing for the average reader. The activists overrunning Wikipedia (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, WP:GREATWRONGS, etc.) are confusing linguistic gender, biological sex, and gender identity – as usual.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 04:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@AReaderOutThataway: What leads you to believe "activists [are] overrunning Wikipedia" when there is unanimous opposition to this proposal? 24.72.14.64 (talk) 03:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose any bright-line rule; punt the matter to the Medicine WikiProject. I get it, I honestly do, but for encyclopaedic work? I think editors should use their common sense and not unnecessarily gender or de-gender articles. Sceptre (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I think the sentiments behind this proposal come from a place of good faith, but at the end of the day social activism is not Wikipedia's task, even if that activism aims to achieve something that I'm sure many editors would consider to be worthy. Wikipedia's task as an encyclopedia is to describe what reliable sources say about a given topic and for it to do that it must use the language that such sources use. I've logged in to my academic portal and chosen the first three results for "prostate cancer". All of them are considered medically reliable. They all refer to "men" having prostates.
  1. Attard, Gerhardt; Parker, Chris; Eeles, Ros A; Schröder, Fritz; Tomlins, Scott A; Tannock, Ian; Drake, Charles G; de Bono, Johann S (January 2016). "Prostate cancer". The Lancet. 387 (10013): 70–82. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61947-4. PMID 26074382. S2CID 26103586.
  2. Chen, Alan; Vijayakumar, Srinivasan (14 April 2011). Prostate cancer. Demos Medical. p. 172. ISBN 9781617050671.
  3. Hricak, Hedvig; Scardino, Peter (20 November 2008). Prostate cancer. Cambridge University Press. p. 252. ISBN 9780521887045.
Regards, SITH (talk) 09:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Require consensus BEFORE creating a new portal

This discussion shows that there is not a consensus to create a new rule requiring pre-approval to create a portal. No change to the existing mass-creation of portals prohibition. — xaosflux Talk 03:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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

Lots of portals getting deleted now. Not that long ago Portal: namespace was almost totally deprecated. Should we start requiring consensus first before a new portal is added? Might reduce the number of portals that get abandoned down the road. 88.111.213.55 (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:BEBOLD ...the community does not consider any namespace special.--02:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Is it easier to create a portal than creating a page? Hyperbolick (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Given the massive number of portals created by a lone enthusiast and then abandoned for a decade, I strongly support some prior approval mechanism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:43, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this per WP:CREEP; this is a today solution in search of a yesterday problem. The RfC prohibiting mass creation is still in place, and I count only one current portal that has been (re)created in the last 7 months, Portal:Climbing; all (again, by my count) the other attempts have been handled quite effectively either at MfD or CSD. I don't expect any other surviving portals to be created in the foreseeable future, as no one is interested in doing so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now but revisit if and when a significant number of bad portals are actually created. I wouldn't say that Portal: namespace was almost totally deprecated – consensus was against deprecation – but please see the #Proposal to delete Portal space below. Certes (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Portals are not like articles. A portal is a miniature Main Page for a subject. The Main Page requires a large amount of volunteer work by multiple teams/ While a properly maintained portal (of which there are only a few) is not as labor-intensive as the Main Page, it does require support. Portals have in the past been created with the apparent assumption that someone else would finish them or maintain them, and that doesn't happen. My own suggestion is that there be a noticeboard called Portals for Discussion, which can discuss both creation and deletion of portals. Something should be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support in line with the discussions below about deleting portal space which I oppose, I support the need to have new portals be approved - could be by a small group of editors watching over portal space similar to bot approvals, but still something that makes sure new portals are appropriate and not too narrow (to a point where a Wikiproject better covers it). --Masem (t) 14:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If the proposal is for the community as a whole to approve portals, or some specialized committee, then I disagree. Looking at a similar case, navigation boxes work well today because they are organized and supported by the editors interested in a given subject area, and would not benefit from centralized approval. If portals are to ever become a well-maintained resource, they too must be managed by the editors interested in the related subject area. Accordingly, those who are doing the work should be empowered to decide how to organize the work in the way that makes most sense for them. isaacl (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't see how portals are ever going to get off the ground if they require consensus to create. There is already so much division over whether to have portals or not to begin with.
I would instead look into how and why ordinary users don't maintain portals. Wikipedia articles are meant to be relatively easy to edit and update, to the point where we trust the community to do it and don't delete articles just because they're out of date. Why not make the process of editing portals easy to the point where a random 62 year old pensioner in the Home Counties or a 75 year old retired mail clerk in Middle America could do it in two keystrokes? Wouldn't that prevent issues like the old "2010s portal" still having a laudatory introductory section on Aung San Suu Kyi? Why not work with the developers of Wikipedia's mobile app so that portals are visible while using a cell phone, so people know they exist and are encouraged to update them?
WhisperToMe (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:CREEP, why not allow portals to go through RfC? I don't see a need for a specialised committee or some similar structure to monitor portal creation. How is one supposed to WP:BEBOLD if hampered by such a structure? —comrade waddie96 ★ (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Oppose best the content editors decide what is best - no need to police - Wikipedia:Accepting other users.--Moxy 🍁 13:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why Rule G13 is not a smart idea.

See:

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Rule_G13_is_really_not_a_good_idea.

This is also relevant to the Village pump, therefore I thought I should refer to it from here as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handroid7 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Limit the use of table templates on Wikipedia

Proposal A big example -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryzen

If you read from a PC Computer or a smart phone you see it loading all the contents on the page. Wikipedia better to change its focus to limit amount of table templates (& details related to table) used on "Main articles" and direct them to create sub page specifically for the "List of.." and tables. There commonly or too many on computer articles,transit and sometimes sports. Regice2020 (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion (Support or Oppose)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_161&oldid=1187779126"