Wikipedia talk:Perennial proposals/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Possible additions

I've written up some blurbs for possible additions to this page. For reference, here's the last version of Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals) before its Esperanzification: [1]

Create an instant rating system for articles

• Proposal: There should be an instant "star rating" system for Wikipedia articles, similar to that found on Yahoo! News and in Amazon.com reviews (e.g. "Was this article helpful to you?").
• Reason for previous rejection: First of all, an instant rating system would require extensive software upgrades, creating a lot of unnecessary work for our developers. Secondly, readers' individual opinions are arbitrary and subjective, especially with questions like "Was this article helpful to you?". An article can be extremely helpful for one reader and useless for another. And finally, the rating system would be far too vulnerable to abuse. Editors could easily use sockpuppets to raise or lower ratings in a content dispute or to promote vanity articles. We already have a process for evaluating articles by quality, along with a featured content program to highlight Wikipedia's best work.
• See also: Category:Articles by quality

Talk pages should use forum software

• Proposal: Talk pages should use Internet forum software instead of wiki formatting. This would give talk pages a more professional appearance, soften the learning curve for users unfamiliar with wiki formatting, and prevent abuses like vandalism and changing other users' comments.
• Reason for previous rejection: A forum-based discussion system would not reduce talk page disruption. If anything, vandalism and disruption would become more of a problem, because it would be more difficult to remove troll threads and personal attacks. Wikipedia's learning curve would not improve, either. A user unfamiliar with both wiki formatting and Internet forums would have to learn two new skills instead of just one. Finally, wiki-based talk page discussions are an important part of the "wiki process" for content-related decision making.

Thoughts? szyslak 12:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am starting to wonder about the purpose of this page in general. First, are all of the things mentioned on this page, and in these proposals for addition to the page, really perennial proposals, or are they things that were proposed once or twice and just never got consensus? Was the rejection overwhelming and unlikely to be reversed in the near future? I suppose it is useful to have this page here so that newbies with policy ideas are aware of the prior debates and what issues they need to address. But on the other hand, sometimes it's good to just restart the debate from scratch after a suitable amount of time has passed and there has been some turnover in the community. I also think that certain items are based on conjecture about what might happen if we implemented a proposal. E.g., the statements that vandals will be encouraged by forum-based discussion systems. Actually, as Larry Sanger notes, most wikis at the time of Wikipedia's founding used thread-based discussion systems and Wikipedia's departure from that made it less wiki-like. Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this page should be reserved for proposals that have been repeatedly rejected for clear reasons. The purpose is to make sure people proposing the same old proposals will make an effort a priori to address objections raised in the past, and if they haven't, not to waste our time.

The first one above is okay. I have not seen the rating system question come up more than once, and I'm a violent supporter of forum-based talk pages. The argument against them above is utterly non-compelling and fails to mention any of the strong advantages of forums. See User:Dcoetzee/Why wikithreads are bad. Dcoetzee 22:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well written, Dcoetzee. Do Sanger's comments on thread mode have any bearing on this discussion? Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should limit this page to proposals that "have been repeatedly rejected for clear reasons". One example of a listing that doesn't meet the above standards is "Requests for Adminship is broken". There's certainly no clear consensus that RFA is "just fine". And many proposals, such as "Prohibit anonymous users from editing", have support among fairly large segments of the community. I think the fact that a proposal repeatedly fails to gain consensus is enough to land it on this page. In regards to the idea of forum-style talk pages, I now see that the idea has more support than I thought it did. I mostly based what I wrote on the discussion archived at the old Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals), where the idea didn't gain much support.

So, at this point I'll only add the "ban personalized signatures" entry, with some modifications to better conform with previous discussion. The others can be added if anyone else wants to, or if the ideas come up more often. szyslak 10:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Minimum article writing requirements for adminship nomination (or some such)

I've seen many an RfA !voter oppose (or support) a candidate based on their contributions to FAs, GAs, and DYKs that they have as notches on their belts. And several times I've seen it proposes (most recently today) that there should be a minimum requirement for the number of X that a candidate has before they are allowed to self-nominate or accept a nomination for adminship. I think the community, for the most part and by consensus, has rejected the notion that there are any prerequisites for nominating yourself/someone else for adminship (that's not to say that a nomination will pass, mind you). I'd like to see this added to PEREN that there are no prereqs for a nomination for adminship, no prereqs for a candidate to pass a nomination, and any such arbitrary, numerical, and subjective "FA count" has been discussed before, and rejected. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I think any proposal to establish prerequisites for adminship would count as perennial. Aside from FA/GA/DYK count, people also propose minimum edit counts, minimum levels of experience, and even age requirements. szyslak (t) 06:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Good article icon

Has come around again, at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal; would anyone be interested in adding it? This are some old links I found on that page:

These were first mentioned here: [2] And deleted here, endorsed here and then a few months later here. See also: this and this. --maclean 20:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And of course Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles/archive 1#The good article tag on main article space, Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 2#New template. I think the last endorsed deletion was Sept 2007 here and the last time this was proposed was Jan 2008 here maclean 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Commentary

Favorite page

This is - hands down - one of my favourite pages in the Wikipedia namespace.

It also contains my favourite policy-related sentence of all time. ...while RFA is our most debated process and nearly everybody seems to think there's something wrong with it, literally years of discussion have yielded no consensus whatsoever on what exactly is wrong with it, nor on what should be done about that.

That is pure gold and my congrats to whoever wrote that sentence. Manning 06:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page has its uses, but the line "If you make a proposal along these lines, it is likely to be swiftly closed for the exact same reason" seems rather counterproductive the way it is written. Some of these proposals have not been rejected because they were opposed but because no consensus was found (ie Requests for Adminship is broken). Why discourage future discussion just because a solution has yet to be found? Joshdboz (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we merely remove the RfA one, and change the advice to something along the lines of "if you re-raise a frequently-proposed proposal, make sure you address rebuttals raised in the past". Dcoetzee 00:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the RfA remaining; it isn't a single "perennial proposal" but rather a spectrum of proposals with similar intent to solve a recognized problem. So yes, it is perennial, but with the current lead it risks stifling future debate. As for the updated advice, I would definitely agree with your suggested change. Joshdboz (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree and am going to be be bold and change it. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One side

There is some really good stuff here, but it usually only presents one side of an issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

anomaly

There is a strange (agree ...) embedded in advertising. 68.144.80.168 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Automatically prompt for missing edit summary

• Reasons for previous rejection: It's already an option in the user preferences, and forcing users to enter edit summaries may annoy them enough they will not save their (possibly constructive) edits.

But what about anonymous users.Vjdchauhan (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC).

Create a counter of people watching a page

Okay, it is noted that this would specifically make unwatched pages vulnerable to vandals.

Simple issue (with a little software tweak): You do not give a count. You only give (as an example) one of the following three possible responses:

This page is watched by:

• Less than 10 editors
• 10-100 editors
• More than 100 editors

This would make sure that there are no invitations to vandals, yet I could be sure that I am not leaving a page unwatched that I don't really care THAT much about if I am number 11+ Ingolfson Ingolfson (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Statistics for SingTel IP range editors

Does anyone have the statistics for constructive edits using SingTel's IP range? I use SingTel. SingTel uses an dynamic IP range. Idiots on SingTel's IP range keep vandalizing wikipedia, causing a flood of "You have new messages" links that, when clicked, reminds me that my country consists of a bunch of whiny, gibbering illiterate kids. </sarcasm> It also sometimes happens on wikia. Seriously. At least it would provide a laugh. I was hoping for a IP ban, or a humorous "Are you being an idiot on the internet. Yes/No" pop-up... But that seemed rather discriminatory. 220.255.7.246 (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not just sign up for an account?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. 220.255.7.242 (talk) 05:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving, renaming and hiding endsections

I don't have a strong feeling about this, because we tend to keep the problem under control at for instance WT:Layout, but an average of once a month, someone suggests that the guidelines should be changed to recommend that some endsection other than External links should be last, or the endsections should be renamed, or links in endsections should get stuffed into a scrollbox to make pages shorter. One name or location can theoretically be as good as another, but if you switch the names and positions around, it's inevitably going to lead to mistakes, especially to mistakes of missing or deleting references. That doesn't mean we need to run a bot, but we've always had consensus in the end for the idea that we don't want to recommend that all 2.5 million articles should be changed to match someone's ideas of a better name or better order.

There's support over at WT:Layout#Change location of section "Notes, Footnotes, or References" for putting this in WP:PEREN. That would work for me; so would writing this into policy (although I'm not sure which policy I'd recommend until I see discussion on it), and so would doing nothing and continuing to argue the case at WT:Layout and WT:CITE and similar pages. I do see the point that putting it into WP:PEREN might be more convenient and more appropriate. Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I support this and see it looking something like this, under WP:PEREN#Content:

Changes to standard appendices

---

• Proposal: The standard appendices at the end of an article (e.g., See also, Notes, References, Further Reading, and External links) should be changed to the system preferred by the editor/a particular professional field/the editor's school. These proposals may involve changing the names of the sections (e.g., changing References to Sources or Bibliography), changing the order of the sections (e.g., putting External links first, or References last), or changing the formatting (e.g., long lists of references should be hidden in a scrolling box).
• Reasons for previous rejection: The existing system, which follows a logical progression from on-wiki information to off-wiki information, has widespread support. Many proposed changes create confusion among readers or reduce accessibility to users with slow internet connections or users with disabilities. Changing systems would be disruptive and ultimately require changing two million existing articles.
• See also: Many discussions in the archives of WT:Layout.

I think the particular proposal that I find to be both most annoying and most persistent is renaming ==References== to the One True™ Section Name according to either (1) my favorite English literature teacher or (2) the folk etymology of the words.

I attempted to identify specific discussions in the WP:LAY archives, but there were so many of them (and so many of them split over several sections) that it was impossible to select just a few. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't neccessarily oppose the section "Changing the standard appendicies", however in the "Reasons for previous rejection" part it states the the existing system has been in use since 2003, however in the the clause immediately following it states how it has changed over time (See also used to be Related topics, Quotations, so on). These two clauses are contradictory and confusing. In the third sentence it states that it reduces accessibility for users on a slow-internet access, to my knowledge I don't remember a proposal doing that, or think of one that that would do that. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply because the end of the page loads last. Actually this is a(nother) good reason to encourage including the refs in the ref template. Rich Farmbrough, 14:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC).

Renaming to Wikipedia:Frequent proposals?

How about renaming this page to Wikipedia:Frequent proposals? Frequent is a word that most people use and understand. travb (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Anybody oppose me moving the page to Wikipedia:Frequent proposals? travb (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this page should stay where it is -- it's been at this name for a very long time, after all -- but a redirect would be a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I support the move to Wikipedia:Frequent proposals. “Frequent proposals” is simpler language that is better in terms of accessibility to newcomers. “Perennial proposals” has an unfortunate connotation that the proposals are doomed to failure no matter what. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I rather thought that the whole point behind this page was to list proposals that were pretty much doomed to failure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I already created a redirect, for both Wikipedia:Frequent proposals and Wikipedia:FREQUENT anyone else have an opinion on this? travb (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent. The current title is cute and familiar, but not quite as clear as the bland and obvious title. It is important to emphasize though that perennial proposals are not in fact doomed to failure; we just don't want people blithely reproposing them without awareness of issues raised before. It doesn't matter much. Dcoetzee 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a big deal, but some more input to get clear consensus would be nice. Formally post it on WP:Requested moves so we can get a better idea.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 03:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Half in Jest, but somewhat seriously

Ok, most people know user:SandyGeorgia, and most people know that she refuses to run for adminship. Somebody yet again has nominated her, and another person investigated it... there are apparently 22 times in 2008 alone that somebody suggested that she run for admin... in other words, nominations for her to run are a PEREN discussion.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cute. :-P But seriously, the most obvious way to deal with this is to have some kind of template people put on their userpage. Any nomination of a person carrying such a template would result in their nomination being speedily removed by the first person who noticed. Dcoetzee 06:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, half in jest... ok maybe a little more than half ;-)---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 06:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes to standard appendices

I don't neccessarily oppose the section "Changing the standard appendicies", however in the "Reasons for previous rejection" part it states the the existing system has been in use since 2003, however in the the clause immediately following it states how it has changed over time (See also used to be Related topics, Quotations, so on). These two clauses are contradictory and confusing. In the third sentence it states that it reduces accessibility for users on a slow-internet access, to my knowledge I don't remember a proposal doing that, or think of one that that would do that. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the offending clause.--Aervanath (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That just makes the contradiction unilateral and doesn't provide the full picture. The standard appendices has changed before, in fact they've been completely rewritten. The main the reason why so many proposals fall short is because they fail to provide verifiability for "actual" practices clause in WP:PG. If you look in the archives, the primary opponent is the google test: where the number of hits would be counted and the prevalence of a certain method measured. Good rationale is not unknown to the proposals, in fact in the archives they can contain very compelling reasons, however my take is that if the reason is so good it should quickly emerge as the de facto method regardless of what WP:LAYOUT says. The page has been changed accordingly. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with your change. I did re-add the bit about the appendices following a logical progression, though, as it is a valid objection.--Aervanath (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't understand what "the current layout follows a logical progression from on-wiki to off-wiki information, and is therefore easy to follow." is designed to convey. This seems rhetorical and repetitive, if the current standard appendices didn't follow a "logical progression" then why are we using it? Furthermore, most proposals also follow a logical progression, in fact a common defense in new proposals is that they follow a more logical method of progression—which contradicts this statement. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is not that some logical progression exists: it's that the logical progression that is being used is the one that moves from on-wiki information (==See also==) to off-wiki information (==External links==). The logic here is not always apparent to people, and editors have generally understood and appreciated it when I've explained it to them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement is still inarticulate. For example, sections usually attributed to "References", "Further reading", and "External links"—all contain off-wiki information, so the question becomes how do you order them with that criteria? Additionally the section "Works" often leads to off-wiki information yet it is placed before the "See also". You need to explain. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• The contents of ==Works== is (1) properly considered part of the article's content, and (2) may be entirely on-wiki information (e.g., links to encyclopedia articles about specific books).
• ==See also== is always entirely on-wiki information.
• Explanatory notes (whatever section heading is used ) is on-wiki information (i.e., information the reader needs now, to understand a detail of the present article).
• ==References== is always entirely off-wiki information.
• ==Further reading== is always entirely off-wiki information.
• ==External links== is always entirely off-wiki information.

-- WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You are not addressing my central point WhatamIdoing. Works may contain off-wiki information, and likewise how would you determine the order of the last three sections? For example, External links and Further reading are both off-wiki, and therefore a proposal to reorder the two would be perfectly valid. In one proposal I remember that it was calling to move the "References" below the External links since they are inherently "footnotes": footnotes most logically belong at the bottom footer. For the specific examples above, my central point is that the sentence and the justification for the sentence is: inconsistent, ambiguous, and unncessary. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's address one single issue: I do not consider ==Works== to be an appendix. I consider it to be part of the regular article. Do you understand what implications my opinion has for your issue? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You may not consider the "Works" section as part of the standard appendices, however it is certainly implied as such in WP:LAYOUT. Nonetheless, let's assume that "Works" is not a part of the Standard appendices, from which I went over in the second portion of my previous argument. Using the statement that it follows a logical progression from on-wiki to off, it in no way addresses how the order of the "References", "Further reading", and "External links" are determined. Because of these inconsistencies and ambiguity—I find the sentence unnecessary and your arguments (or lack of it) centered more on the notion that you hold the authority on this subject than on reason or substance. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement is not meant to explain everything. It does, however, explain part of the order (e.g., ==See also== before ==External links==). This partial explanation has been helpful to editors (other than you, apparently). I see no reason to exclude an explanation that some editors find informative and helpful simply because one editor does not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You seem to be under the presumption that your opinion holds so well that you may disparage or ignore the numerous inconsistencies and ambiguities that I have provided. The scope of the sentence does not limit itself to simply applying that the "See also" comes before the "External links", nor does it in anyway address the "Works" section (provide that it is not part of the Standard appendices, or explain it as an exception to the system). This is not helpful, this is confusing and ambiguous. Now, if we do in fact limit the scope of the sentence—say reword that the rationale behind placing the "See also" before the "External links" is on-wiki to off. Then a sentence with such a trivial scope would be unnecessary, this isn't WP:LAYOUT, and it needs not document every reason for order and naming of each relevant section. I understand the implication that you opinion holds a considerable amount of weight, don't abuse it as I see it now. You have to remember that you too are one editor. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say we're three by now. I see no problems with the explanations here. The issue of whether "Works" is on- or off-wiki seems is pretty much moot. It's basically the same deal whether the article subject is an author, actor, filmmaker or a musician and it should be treated like any list of facts in an article.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The misleading impact of silent removals from this page

The rather brusque lead section of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals/Archive 1 might seem overly dismissive, because it fails to mention an interesting secret hidden in the history of this page: the occasional disappearance of perennial proposals, when the Wikipedia community and/or developers decide to implement them. The page advises users to address the reasons for past rejections before proposing something again, but gives no examples of how some people have managed to do this in the past. The page only lists proposals for which no one has yet addressed the reasons for past rejection, leaving the reader without any clue about what it takes to turn a failed proposal into a successful one, or even to decide whether this might be possible, and how much time and effort it might take.

I noticed this when I tried to follow a link from WP:EIW#Search to Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Search should detect spelling errors, only to discover the link rot resulting from this removal of the section. The page does link to Wikipedia:Historic debates, but that page appears to apply a stricter standard of "notability" than this page does, because not every "perennial proposal" which eventually succeeded gets the nod as "historic" (whatever that could mean). It seems to me that if a failed proposal is important enough to be a "perennial proposal", then when it eventually succeeds it remains just as important. Otherwise, by giving undue weight to the currently failed proposals, the perennial proposals page implicitly becomes an Appeal to tradition. (Appeal to tradition is a fallacy because the longstanding nature of a tradition is, by itself, neither an argument for, nor against, the tradition.)

Agreed. This page sounds much more imposing than it is, and doesn't necessarily provide links to where one can pursue new better proposals along the lines of past failed ones. I love historical continuity of showing an archive of now-accepted once-perennial proposals. Ditto for nowresolved longstanding edit wars... it shows a pattern of success in difficult collaboration others can learn to emulate and perfect. +sj + 09:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Building on some eloquent ideas from Sam, I'm working on a Community facilitation project that aims to identify all of the perennial issues that come up across the project, rejected, debated, or repeatedly re-implemented, and provide each one with its own page where the discussion can be facilitated and flourish over time, without the pressure of normal spot-polls or discussions to Make Change Happen Now. All of these perennials reflect a valid underlying issue, and should eventually find successful compromise or resolution (or at least a statement of the issue that isn't presented in such a negative light). Please see WP:Issues for a list of current issues and meta-issues. +sj+ 09:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The history of the real world has many examples of proposals that failed repeatedly, sometimes for centuries, before succeeding in particular cultures. See for example Abolitionism and Women's suffrage, two perennial proposals that have yet to be universally adopted. Even in societies where slavery has been long outlawed, and no one seriously questions the right of women to vote, it is still instructive to study the history of those debates, for example when determining how to approach current debates on social issues such as gay marriage and capital punishment. Both the opponents and proponents of change tend to recycle similar arguments from one issue to the next, and those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We could use a "Formerly perennial proposals" page to house proposals that leave this page. The lead section of this page might also acknowledge the fact that proposals occasionally leave the page by being adopted. --Teratornis (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as a problem -- in fact, quite the opposite, since this page should only contain those proposals that are relevant now -- but if you want to create a separate page for that information, then feel free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with WhatamIdoing - such a historical page would be a useful contribution to WP's internal history pages, and could be linked from here. Dcoetzee 01:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that such a page should be linked to from this one, so people looking to re-propose a perennial proposal can see how the ex-perennials finally succeeded, and get tips. Either way, I will tweak the intro to acknowledge that some proposals do get implemented.--Aervanath (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope to see significant proposals get a permanent page (or a section in one) under WP:Issues before they end up here for even the first time. +sj+ 09:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All words and phrases should be linked by anon

“

• Reasons for possible reconsideration: Suppose for the sake of discussion all links were implicit, so that the "unsightly sea" were not seen? Factoring aside for the moment how best to achieve this, it would seem that if a user could click on any word or term (either by pure point-and-click or ranging text) this would both expand the richness of interlinking, while concurrently reducing the current density of blue-ness, thereby improving ledgibility. An intermediary design point would be some sort of mouse over visual feedback that reinforces just what is linked. Finally, as Wikipedia does continue to be enriched (say 10M articles) the current 'sightly sea' of blue will likely become more 'unsighly' (i.e, the current policy doesn't scale).

”

Above was added by 71.139.192.77 in the following diff[3]. Looks interesting, it's available here if anyone wants to discuss it. ChyranandChloe (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

Perhaps we should add persistent efforts at WP:V to make Wikipedia present Truth™ rather than merely whatever can be verified.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the confusion results due to WP:RS already attempting to have Wikipedia present Truth™ (or at least what is most likely to be true, according to people and sources that are reliable, meaning they are likely to print Truth™). However, WP prefers to use the word "reliable" rather than "likely to present Truth™". Perhaps for the sake of shortness, but it causes many people to bang their heads on the wall, especially when they see somebody say that Wikipedia is interested only in verifiability, which (so long as WP:RS exists) is not True.™ SBHarris 02:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Donate to edit

This change adds a claim that editors frequently propose that new editors should be made to 'donate' to edit. I agree that this would be a bad idea, but I've never seen anyone propose this. This page is for things that are frequently (even endlessly) proposed, not for every possible bad idea. Can someone provide links to prove that this is actually a "perennial proposal"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected, I have removed this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Move maintenance tags to talk pages

The section Move maintenance tags to talk pages was added by user:Mr.Z-man 23:56, 8 December 2008 in it it was said "Reasons for previous rejection:" where is the evidence of this previous rejection prior to 8 December 2008? -- PBS (talk) 23:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of these aren't prior to 2008, but Sept 2010, Jan 2009, Nov 2009, Oct 2008, December 2008, March 2008, October 2007. There are probably others as well, but terms like "templates" and "talk page" come up a lot, so its difficult to search through archives. Its been discussed numerous times and obviously (based on the fact that we haven't done it) has never garnered sufficient support to be implemented. Mr.Z-man 00:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the discussions you have bough up show "Reasons for previous rejection:" as there has not been a clear consensus either way, and as shown by the more recent Sept 2010 this paragraph is being quoted as if there has been a firm consensus in favour of maintenance template in article space: "This has come up many times before, you may want to check the archives for past discussions. Anomie⚔ 20:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)".

I think the wording needs changing to show that the community is split on this issue and that no consensus has developed either way. Although from my experience of discussing it in the past (and in the examples conversations you have given here) There seems to be a consensus that templates like {{unreferenced}}, which contains information pertinent to the casual reader (in normal text and editorial information in small text) should be placed in article space while templates such as {{Orphan}} that only refer to editorial issues should be placed on the talk page.

However that is my opinion, and without a clear consensus to do so, I do not think that interpretation of the consensus should be presented here. What I do think needs adding to this section is:

1) a clear statement that there is not and has not been a clear consensus on the issue.

2) a second paragraph stating the common threads for change (There is a 2007 personal essay on the issue at User:Shanes/Why tags are evil) -- PBS (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I am personally split on the issue. Most templates disfigure the article and some templates like Template:Cleanup and Template:Update are just plain irritating. On the other hand, the templates do make it clear that the article is a work in progress, and may encourage readers to edit and improve. Maybe the templates need discussing one by one. Some always belong on the article page, some never do, and some could be optional (either article or discussion page). Also, maybe some templates could be toned down a bit, or a lot, so they are less jarring. Would it make sense to start a RfC on how to resolve the question - the approach to finding a solution, not what the solution is? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Update has some uses, but a better solution would be to just delete the general cleanup and expand templates, since they don't add any information and basically only serve to A: ugly up the page and B: show readers and editors that template messages on articles are unimportant. B is probably the more important result. Most non-wiki savvy people I talk to don't even notice the templates or ignore them completely. Protonk (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What I am getting at is to back off from specific opinions (I just gave a couple, so did you Protonk - very hard to avoid), but to look for a way to organize some sort of "meta-discussion" on how to organize a constructive debate on ways to approach and resolve this very complex subject. Not a discussion on opinions, but a discussion on how to focus and organize the discussion. Not "what is the solution?" but "how are we going to find the solution?" No opinions on the solution allowed, which may be an impossible discipline to enforce. "Forget this theoretical bullshit, the obvious answer is ..."

Maybe, and I am anticipating the result, one topic could be general objectives of the notices, another style guides for the notices, another bot-type implementation of policy changes and another could be how to organize and resolve debate on specific templates. Perhaps this has been tried and has failed many times before. But maybe some neutral editor who is experienced with organizing and running complex debates (not me) could help us make some progress. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My general suggestion would be to prune back article templates which are overly broad or which will just languish, have more aggressive bot interaction with other templates (The citation needed general template should be removed by a bot if a citation is added, regardless of content...that's an extreme view, but w/e), and look for templates on articles which tend to languish. Protonk (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not my intention to start yet another discussion about what to do with maintenance tags as I do not think that this is the appropriate forum. What I wanted to discuss is how we update the section on the Wikipedia page Perennial proposals as I think it currently misleading, and is as this edit to Village Pump (proposals) at 00:09 on 25 October 2010 shows is being cited as if there is already a consensus on this issue. -- PBS (talk) 08:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Missed your point. Non-consensus is a reason for rejection. Probably most of the discussions on perennial proposals ended in non-consensus, which is why they keep coming up again. I am not sure the wording needs to be changed, but maybe it could be clarified:

• Reasons for previous rejection: No consensus has ever been reached. Counter-arguments include: Every reader is a potential editor ...

Also, adding a See also pointing to some of the previous discussions would be useful. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

There has been no "previous rejection" -- there is a difference between rejection (a consensus not to do something) and no consensus to do something. Only one of the reasons given in the conversations is presented for moving them to the talk page and more than one is given for not doing so -- about three times as many words are in the second paragraph as opposed to the first. I propose to include the other reasons given in the first paragrah and change the wording of the bold "Reasons for previous rejection" to "counter proposals" as that is what they are. -- PBS (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One way to make the entry balanced could be

• Proposal: Move maintenance tags such as {{cleanup}} and {{POV-check}} from the head of article pages to the article talk pages.
• Outcome: No consensus has ever been reached to implement or reject this proposal
• Common arguments: Typical arguments in favor of the proposal have been... Typical arguments against ...
• See also: Sample inconclusive discussions: Sept 2010, Jan 2009, Nov 2009, Oct 2008, December 2008, March 2008, October 2007.

Aymatth2 (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

PBS, I don't quite understand your response. "There has been no previous rejection" -- but Mr Z-man gave you a list of relevant discussions, which include four that preceded the addition here. What exactly "counts" as a previous rejection, if those multiple conversations don't qualify as either "previous" or "rejections" in your mind? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a very broad issue and to date it has not been discussed with any focus. I can show you discussions where the majority have participated have agreed that maintaince tags in general or the comments in a specific maintaince tag should be placed on the talk page. But majority particularly where the conversation involves less than half a dozen editors is unlikely to be taken as a consensus. The conversations listed here count as previous but there is neither a consensus for or against them. The current formation of proposition followed by rejection implies a clear consensus against the proposition -- as shown by the instances of two editors who linked to here to imply that there was -- but this is not shown in any conversations and is I think misleading. -- PBS (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

As this has been brought to my attention again, and I notice that no action has been taken since list time I raised it, I will probably get around to changing this entry to say that to date there has been no consensus on this issue. -- PBS (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Standard format change

The perennial proposals are about subjects that continue to be controversial, perhaps because the rationale for the status quo has never been presented entirely convincingly. Some editors continue to want change. Despite the passion in the debates, the issues are likely to be marginal, with various pros and cons. That is why they are perennial. My guess is that "no consensus to change" is more common than "consensus to reject".

The first sentence in this page says: "This is a list of things that are frequently proposed on Wikipedia, and have been rejected by the community several times in the past". Better would be: "This is a list of things that are frequently proposed on Wikipedia, but have never been accepted by the community".

The present standard format for entries on this page is:

• Proposal: description of the proposal, with reasons for the change
• Reasons for previous rejection: description of reasons against the change
• See also: policy

It could be more satisfying to participants in the debates, more accurate and perhaps more useful to editors thinking of re-launching a debate, to use a format like:

• Proposal: description of the proposal
• Common reasons: No more than 300 characters presenting the reasons
• Common objections: No more than 300 characters presenting the objections
• See also: policy and archives

The 300-character limit for pros and cons would have to be rigidly enforced. Anyone wanting to vent their opinions on a proposal should be invited in the intro to do so on a sub-page of this page, and their comments just moved to the sub-page if they miss the guideline. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the change. For one thing, if something is named on this page, it usually does mean it was "rejected", usually as either technically impossible (with current software) or strongly undesirable. Listing here indicates that people are irritated by having to re-re-re-re-discuss it with newer editors, and the community is confident that the consensus won't be changing any time soon. For another, anyone who is proposing a given idea presumably already understands its virtues, so enumerating the "pro" claims is completely unnecessary. Your character limits would require cutting some explanations by noticeably more than half, which means that objections will be badly explained -- and since explaining the objections to enthusiasts is the primary point of the page, this seems misguided. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at several of the discussions, and they often just peter out inconclusively with much repetition of fixed positions on both sides, like this one on placement of maintenance tags. Even when there is a structured debate with a good summary, as in this one on removing talk page warnings, the rejection reason tends to be "no consensus to change" rather than "consensus to not change". The value of listing the "pro" arguments as well as the "cons" and giving pointers to archived discussions is to point out that we have already been there, seen those arguments, not been persuaded by them. If there are no new insights, don't bring the subject up again. (Maybe the limit could be higher, say 500 characters.) Aymatth2 (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, as an alternative to reformatting we could remove all those perennial proposals where there has not been a clear consensus against the proposal, then the qualification "normally" would not be needed as the page would only contain those were a consensus against the proposal has been clearly shown to reject the proposal -- one such proposal is that spelling should be standardised across Wikipedia (either for "international" English or American English). I think, that rather than removing all those were there is not a clear consensus, it better to reformat the page, particularly as rejection, also implies that consensus can not change. -- PBS (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The value of this page is to provide a quick summary of all the perennial proposals. When they are introduced yet again, as they will be, someone can point to the summary and say "do you really have a new argument?" I would keep (and identify) the ones where there has been a clear consensus in the past to reject, and keep (and identify) those where no consensus has ever been achieved, so the proposal has been rejected by default. Either way, there is value in presenting the proposal with its main arguments and counter-arguments from a neutral point of view. It should be obvious why consensus is unlikely unless a new argument is introduced. For the same reason, there is value in pointing editors to previous debates.

The perennial proposals all have merit, at least superficially, or they would not be perennial. Really dumb ideas will not cause much debate. There is no need to be judgmental. Some of the proposals may be quite good, supported by many editors, but rejected by enough editors to prevent consensus. Others may be less good, with stronger arguments against them. My guess is that most are marginal: no great harm would be done by adopting them, but enough editors raise objections to keep blocking adoption. No great harm in their being blocked either. What the proposals have in common is that they have been raised repeatedly and have never been accepted: no consensus to implement.

If an editor has a reason for the proposal that has not been considered before, that may sway the decision. Perhaps it turns out there is a legal requirement that nobody spotted, or great damage has been done by current policy - some decisive new input. But if there is nothing new to say, it is almost certainly a waste of time to raise the issue again: consensus will again not be achieved. If the description only covers the reasons against, or is strongly biased towards the reasons against, the proposal will be resubmitted again and again. If it gives a balanced overview, showing the full range of opinions expressed in the past and thus the unlikelihood of gaining consensus for change if the same arguments are rehashed, we may save a whole lot of effort spent on arguments that could be better directed to improving Wikipedia content. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I would support the change, minus the 300 character limit. The only restrictions should be that the argument A) is relevant, B) has actually come up in a discussion on the subject (preferably expressed by multiple users), and C) is not trivially refuted or clearly wrong. But an arbitrary limit just means that good reasons might get left out; people might start a new discussion based on the missing arguments, thinking that their argument is new. Mr.Z-man 21:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

We have to hope that editors on the project page will do their best to stick to a clear, simple and objective summary of the pro and con arguments. If they do not, presumably later editors will correct bias or inaccuracy. The description of a proposal may start expanding into a fresh debate on the proposal, but that can be dealt with by cut-and-paste move to this talk page or another discussion area. So yes, forget the limit. There is really no way to enforce it. The simplest way to introduce the change is probably just to start following the new style: give a balanced summary of the arguments that have commonly been introduced, and point to previous discussions. I took a shot at an example with Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Image placeholders. (I don't like them, but that is irrelevant.) Aymatth2 (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

About the format, I thought it was a very bulky way of presenting the issue.

About the example, I don't think that it's a perennial proposal that has been rejected by the community. (It is neither a common proposal, nor one that has been rejected.) Consequently, I don't think that it actually qualifies for inclusion on this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Paid editing?

User:HandThatFeeds closed a long discussion at VPP with the comment that (bans on) paid editing is "Another WP:PEREN we're not going to solve here." Should paid editing be included in the list here?

At the moment, I'm not sure that it really qualifies, but my mind is open. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Good point. I thought paid editing had been included on this page at one point, but it looks like it's gone. Or I was misremembering. Either way, it is a perennial proposal at VP and other venues (both banning and endorsing it). So, yeah, I'd support adding it to this page, with a decent explanation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not yet fully familiar with what is proper or not proper to list as WP:PEREN, but generally agree that paid editing discussion should be added to the list. It's been ongoing for many many years, and still has no consensus.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     23:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I've added a basic "Paid editing" section. szyslak (t) 11:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not totally convinced about inclusion. The page is basically a list of things there is a previous consensus against (which may change at some point); but in this case, there was simply no consensus. Rd232 ^talk 12:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the text "Editing services, in which editors solicit money for changes that benefit the customer" is very vague and cause for concern. 'Benefit' is not defined. It could mean a benefit for the customer to be included in wikipedia, according to all guidelines and policies and community consensus, or it could mean a benefit for the customer to spam and promote. Obviously the spam/promotion is against the Wikipedia ethos, but the valid inclusion is not.     Eclipsed   (talk)   (code of ethics)     12:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: WP:RS should be expanded and should explicitly trump WP:V

The discussion is here: [4]

Your thoughts are appreciated. The "oldest people" question, and how to verify such people, is only what set off discussion. I suggest that having NO source, or a primary source only, is better than citing an easily-verifiable source that isn't reliable for your purpose (which very often is your daily newspaper). SBHarris 23:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

I'm confused by this edit summary. Does this mean that several months ago, people decided that semi-protecting or fully protecting today's featured article was a good idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I am confused too; according to this Featured Articles are no longer protected just because they are Featured Articles. meshach (talk) 02:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that TFA's were ever supposed to be protected just because they were TFAs. My impression is that they are supposed to be treated just like any other article (see, e.g., WT:TFA#RfC:_Time_to_dispense_with_WP:NOPRO.3F). I've restored the section. Perhaps if Dweller objects, s/he'll provide us with links showing that practice has actually changed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion problems

About this:

delay nominating new articles for speedy deletion

• Proposal: Newly created articles that are not attack pages, vandalism, or copyright violations should be given a grace period of a few hours before they can be nominated or deleted via speedy deletion.
• Reasons for previous rejection: It is widely considered good practice to give a brand new article that was not created in bad faith some time for improvement. However, many new articles, even if created in good faith, have absolutely no potential to become proper encyclopedia articles and no amount of time will change that. Process creep is also a concern.

I'm not sure that this is properly a perennial proposal. The community seems to be slowly crawling in that direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea. The criteria for which articles are eligible for this could be limited to non notable a7. This would prevent any libel / copyright problems being included. Here is a slight tweaking of your wording:

• Proposal: Newly created articles that are strictly A7 (non-notable) should be given a grace period of a few hours before they can be nominated or deleted via speedy deletion.
• Reasons for previous rejection: It is widely considered good practice to give a brand new article that was not created in bad faith some time for improvement. However, many new articles, even if created in good faith, have absolutely no potential to become proper encyclopedia articles and no amount of time will change that. Altering rules for one off situations could be seen as process creep since admns deleting articles are always advised to use common sense.

How does that sound! meshach (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like a perfectly fine proposal, but it sounds like a new proposal, which is not the purpose of this page. If you want to propose this, then you might post your ideas at WT:CSD or WP:VPP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been proposed over and over and over again at WT:CSD and elsewhere over the last few years, which is why I added it here. Details of the proposals have varied, but the central idea of forcing a time delay has in fact been repeatedly shot down. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Case sensitivity

Some years ago, Wikipedia was not case sensitive, and whether Wikipedia should be case sensitive was listed here. It is now no longer here, as Wikipedia now appears to be case sensitive. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. Wikipedia has always been case sensitive for logins and page names (except for the first letter, which is automatically capitalized). It was previously also case-sensitive and punctuation-specific for searching, although that has been liberalized. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering about "always" here. I got involved circa 2005, but even back then Wikipedia was already on MediaWiki. What about prior to MediaWiki? Wikipedia:Phase II software describes two different systems used prior -- "Phase II" and UseModWiki. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

ACEO's account history goes back to late 2006, so pre-2002 software is not likely to be relevant to the comment, but I'll ask someone who will know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies if I confused some one with my early comments. What I actually meant was that initially, Wikipedia WAS case sensitive, but that no longer appears to be the case - as WhatamIdoing points out, that has now been liberalised. Again, apologies if I confused any one! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I came here from Magnus's talk page. I'm interested in the early history of Wikipedia, but I don't know everything about the early software. As far as I know, it has never been possible for usernames or pagenames to begin with a lower-case letter, except for a brief time when the Phase II software was being tested on Meta (see comment 31 and subsequent comments on bug 323. Prior to March 2001, edits were stored under user's hostnames rather than their IP addresses, so it's possible to find "usernames" like office.bomis.com. Graham87 15:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Technical proposal: distributed Wikipedia

I just got caught suggesting this one :-D My evidence for this one's status as a perennial is HaeB's Timeline of distributed Wikipedia proposals. Like most of the technical proposals it's never been rejected, but in 18 years of proposals - dating back to Interpedia in 1993 - no-one's ever managed to write one that works - David Gerard (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I once worked out a way to do this, and I'm surely not the only techie to actually think he had something that was simple and workable. My problem was that I couldn't really convince myself that anybody would want to use it. Maybe that's why it's a perennial--a problem with hosts of fixes, none of which is attractive. --TS 01:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

FUTON bias

Currently we have:

Wikipedia has an unintentional systemic bias in favor of freely available online sources (called the FUTON bias) written in English that may distort its contents, and institutionalizing such a recommendation would only further exacerbate this bias.

I believe that in reality the bias is not only intentional, but is both in keeping with and synergistic with Wikipedia's mission. Such sources aid in the improvement of WP far more than similar offline sources. They are also, by dint of being FUTON, themselves subject to a higher level of scrutiny. Just as editor scrutiny crowdsources the validation of WP content, broad exposure in and of itself improves the probability of finding flaws in published works. Further, we have no reason stated for thinking that FUTON bias slants the content of the publications. Can we just drop the "unintentional"? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

While individuals often make this choice, I don't think that the community intends for them to do so. In fact, the community goes out of its way to encourage people not to be blind to sources that aren't free and online. But I don't think that the word is important to the explanation, so I've removed it.

FUTON bias slants the contents of our articles, not necessarily of the publications themselves. This is a bigger problem outside the areas that you and I normally work in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete unref'd articles

The discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Require_all_new_articles_to_contain_at_least_one_source begins with the claim that, "I'm sure this is a semi-perennial proposal by now." I've certainly encountered a few editors who believe that {{unref}} is a valid reason for deletion. Is this really enough of a perennial proposal to justify adding it to the list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I just added this, based on the discussion you pointed to, now at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 75#Require all new articles to contain at least one source. szyslak (t) 11:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing the default color of redlinks to green or something less unappetizing

You'd think that a modest proposal like this, which most people agree with, would draw less opposition. Instead it has a hilarious number of opposers, who range from the "it won't make any difference" to "it's no problem now" to "zOMG it will destroy teh Wikipedia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Red_link#Modest_Proposal:_Change_.22redlink.22_default_color_to_GREEN

I think this lame war should have a special place here. For it comes up every time some newcomming to WP sees a redlink (but not an improper one like the foregoing), hates looking at it, and tries to "fix" it, by any of the obvious (but wrong) ways that people who hate looking at them first think of.

This is a proper WP:PERENNIAL topic because the argument about it, and the problems with it, have been going on a long time, now, as you see above. And yet, the default color remains as WP standard. As does the policy that redlinks, despite their shocking color, are a good thing. I, too, think they are a good thing. But a good and normal thing should not be painted red, unless perhaps it's a barn in Pennsylvania.

SBHarris 17:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Meta-problem with this page

The problem is that many of the standard reasons given against the various parennial proposals are brain-dead or facetious or just plain wrong. So what do we do about THAT? For example, the a reason given against allowing only registered users to edit, is that would-be vandals will merely take 10 seconds to register. But that assumes something that is not so: it doesn't take 10 seconds to register for all articles-- to edit sprotected articles (which are those that get most vandalism from young students) it takes 4 days and the time it takes to do 10 good edits. Even before that, vandalizing non-protected articles as a name-user, you get FAR less slack for your vandalisms than you do as an IP, since at the back of every blocking-admin's mind is the idea that an IP might represent a whole library computer center of information-starved dusty children in a third world school, and THEREFORE should be given a special dispensation to be able to erase pages and and replace them with vulgarity, without consequences. So, in short, it's FAR harder to vandalise all articles as a name-user. In short, the counterargument is no good. So what is the point of having it here? SBHarris 21:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to prove the problem, my latest edit pointing out problems with the reasoning for rejection of this idea, have been reverted. >80% of IP edits are good faith ones, says the page, and although 93% of vandal edits are IP edits, requiring registration would not stop these because the vandals could easily register. Left out is that so just as easily could all those good-faith IP editors, too-- by the same argument. This page is a graveyard of bad arguments with no refutation. Ultimately, the reasoning here is basically something like: "We don't do this particular thing, because the Sun rises in the East." Point out that this is not a logical argument and you will be reverted. Welcome to Wikipedia. SBHarris 02:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the edit summary of the revert? It says These are not "Reasons for previous rejection", these are arguing for IPs to register. I don't think that's appropriate here. That's hardly rejecting additional reasoning.

I don't know about the majority of editors, but I expect proposals and responses are rather widely agreed upon, After discussion. Any moderate to extensive addition or change would require many editors weighing in on the discussion page before anything is added. Your addition was hardly insignificant, so it was reverted in due course. —EncMstr (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You seem to assume that the reasons for rejection given here were one-and-all "widely agreed upon, after discussion." Not so. Somebody stuck in that little bit about how most vandalisms coming from IPs is irrelevent because vandal-IPs could easily register in 10 seconds. Yet the obvious counterargument that well-meaning IPs could then just as easily register (yet are being presumed for the sake of this policy to have great difficulty doing so), has been surpressed. That's it. As for Jimbo's comment, it's mere assertion without any logical or factual backing, and is made ex cathedra and if there is any argument on WP where he has defended it logically against opposition, please cite it. I do not believe it exists, but proof is upon you, since you're making the claim. So I call boloney. SBHarris 19:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to re-argue these old discussions or to add new arguments for or against any of these proposals, it is merely a record of past events for reference. You are adding new material without adding any evidence that the positions stated by you were stated in the discussions that led to the rejections of said proposals. The onus is on you to back up your position with diffs from the relevant discussions. You can't just make up your own arguments and add them retroactively to the record here. If you want to re-open an issue so that you can make these points in an actual policy discussion, use WP:WPP or write up a proposal in WP space somewhere and open an WP:RFC on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, I wasn't trying to stir up trouble with this edit. Edit summaries only have so much space to explain things on, so perhaps I should have checked here and made an expended note about it here as well. The reason I reverted it, in addition to the basic reason given in my edit summary, is that my understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia:Perennial proposals is to list things that have been proposed and rejected several times, and to list reasons why they were rejected. For this reason, I don't think it's appropriate to have pros and cons listed in a neutral and balanced way (which would be different according to each editor's opinion of the proposal), as that isn't (to my understanding) the point of this page. Rather, I believe the point is to show why various proposals have failed in the past, so that editors seeking to re-propose them can gain an understanding of why they have failed in the past, so that they can (hopefully) determine if they can successfully address these issues as opposed to repeating previous discussions ad infinitum. In that way the page becomes a simple summary "This was the proposal, and here is why it failed previously" as opposed to being an overly detailed pro/con argument, essentially being a duplicate of the original RfC (or wherever the proposal was).

However, that aside, the section that the information was inserted into (Reasons for previous rejection) seemed inappropriate, as the information was not in any way a reason for a previous rejection, but was an argument supporting the proposal. If the information does belong on this page (which doesn't seem to be the case), I would strongly suggest placing it in its own section, such as Common arguments for the proposal or something along those lines. - SudoGhost 19:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

1. There are several separate issues here. One is the purpose of this page, which seems to be to name perennial proposals and the reasons for their rejection. But we could do better. Summaries of legal cases always have summaries of the winning arguments AND the best losing arguments (in the Supreme Court there is a minority decision, and so on). That saves everybody looking at the issue later, a lot of time. The way this page is constructed, it is one-sided. It just has things like "Jimmy Wales says that we'd rather have vandals vandalize from IP addresses" which is ridiculous given the way we coddle IP users, fearing that we're dealing with shared IPs. Truthfully, we'd rather have vandalism done by name-users if we had the choice, since it makes dealing with them very specific to an individual. But you won't read about that here on this page. Why not? You read only the rejection reasons, bad though they may be, but not the reasons for the proposed change, good though they may have been. What is the point? It amounts to near-trollery. And yes, the place for questioning the format and purpose of this article IS here on the TALK page of it. Where else?
2. Then, there is the question of whether even the arguments given for rejection of the proposed change are fairly summarized from the relevent community discussions. In many cases, they are not. But how am I going to show that, without specific examples? And if I give specific examples, I open myself to the objection that this page is not the place for it. Well, it is actually the place for it, if the examples are being used to illustrate a larger problem. See the point? To establish a pattern of abuse you need data points. SBHarris 19:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

All words and phrases should be linked

One of the reasons given against linking all words and phrases is "This would create an unsightly sea of blue links", which is nonsense because if every word was linked then obviously the links would not be made blue to identify them. A sensible objection that seems to be missing is that human intelligence is required to identify phrase boundaries and non-literal ("piped") links (I assume that "link all words" would be an automated feature, since no one would want to physically type square brackets around every word). 86.181.173.103 (talk) 12:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Not true. It would not be an automated feature, because a bot to accomplish that purpose would fall close to the category of a spell-checking bot, which is forbidden. Wikipedia:Wikilinks states that only the first instance of a word in an article should be linked, so there would be a need for distinction between linked and non-linked text. Hyperlinks can be made black like this (that "this" is a link), but that requires placement of <font color="#000000"></font> around the visible link, which is even more work. Interchangeable|talk to me 16:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have the cart before the horse. If it was agreed to implement this feature then it would clearly not be "forbidden", and the rules about Wikilinks would clearly need to be rewritten in many respects. You can't simply cite existing policies as "reasons" why an idea is rejected. Those policies can always change. (Be clear that I am not supporting this proposal. I just think that the "Reasons for rejection" section is deficient.) 86.181.173.103 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Be bold and edit it yourself, but be aware that you might be reverted. I'm not entirely opposed to your idea, but others (especially Cluebot) might be. Interchangeable|talk to me 23:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Beatles RfC

You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Require or prefer free, online sources

Should we add a wikilink to WP:RX in this section? Many don't know it exists but it may also increase the workload over there. Should we bring it up at RX talk as well?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"Technologically unfeasible without further development."

The top of this page says

"This is a list of things that are frequently proposed on Wikipedia, and have been rejected by the community several times in the past." and "...discussed before and never met consensus."

Yet several of the perennial proposals are marked

"Reasons for previous rejection: Technologically unfeasible without further development."

This is contradictory. It could very well be that that the proposal has an overwhelming consensus in favor of it, but is also so very difficult (many, many man-years and many, many dollars) that it hasn't been implemented despite the consensus.

In the above case, the answer to someone who proposes it again should not be "Consensus can change, and some proposals which remained on this page for a long time have finally been proposed in a way which reached consensus" but rather something like "don't bother trying to reach consensus; we already have that. The problem is resources. Here is a link to a place where you can add your voice if you think that more resources should be devoted to this issue".

The developers would then be able to make intelligent tradeoffs. Something that requires a day of work and a week of testing would need less support than something that requires a week of work and a month of testing. Or the answer might very well be "we are pretty sure that this is so technologically unfeasible that no level of projected resources can make it so, but Here is a link to a place where you can add your voice. If a million of you want this, we will look at the feasibility again". --Guy Macon (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

(Sound of Crickets...) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Broadly I agree with you, though I'd say it is a little more complex than that. IT resources come broadly in three kinds, software such as developer time, hardware such as extra processing that would need even more powerful servers at the datacentre, and user load - extra processing required of our editors or readers. It is vital to understand which of the three, or more usually what combination of the three is involved, and then put that into the context of when the request was considered. Something that would have needed several days of developer time a few years ago might well be worth reviving now as I understand we have more devs available, but if the rationale was "the benefit doesn't seem to justify the necessary month of developer time" then that isn't likely to change. Whilst any proposal that was going to require too many extra servers in the IT centre needs to be put into the context of Moore's law and be declined with a rational such as "too much server load as of 2013 - happy to reconsider in 2018". The third is the most difficult for us as one of the things that differentiates us from commercial sites is that we care equally about the editors in the slowest third world Internet cafe or dial up users on obsolete technology as we do about affluent broadband subscribers, so any proposal that would bloat the information that we send the readers along with the information they requested should get resisted as it would slow things down for all readers. In practice this didn't seem to get considered re AFT, but arguably it should have done. ϢereSpielChequers 09:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Share buttons

Hi all, I'm curious as to why this is needed. Having share buttons is not related to watchlists or SuggestBot. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess in my mind I thought that a "like" button would be used to create a selection of articles for personal use. This is exactly what a watchlist is. Maybe I am missing the point here, how do you see it? meshach (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The section in question, Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Share pages on Facebook, Twitter etc., is to do with requests that we add "a button for [service X] that allows me to post any article to [service X]". It's entirely about integration with outside Social networks. It has nothing to do with editors keeping personal lists of favourite articles. Click the links to the VillagePump and HelpDesk threads at the end of the section, to see examples. –Quiddity (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay - I see now; thanks for clarifying. If you readd it I will not touch it. meshach (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Quiddity said what I was thinking. Thanks to you both! :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

1.7 Define reliable sources; discussion

This is the statement from 1.7, "Define reliable sources":

"Reasons for previous rejection: Assessing the reliability of sources requires sound editorial judgment, not strict adherence to a list of rules. Whether a source is reliable depends on how the source relates to the material: a very weak source may be reliable for a very small claim, such as "this source was published", while a very strong source will be deemed unreliable if the claim is unrelated to the source's contents (e.g., a source about electricity being cited for information about a celebrity). Although it may be possible to define a minimum threshold below which sources are never acceptable as reference for Wikipedia content, it appears presumptuous to define all sources above that threshold as "reliable". For this reason, a universally applicable (or: policy-level) definition of reliable sources is impractical. Furthermore, strict rules about what type of source is permitted amount to instruction creep."

This reasoning seems like it's attacking a strawman. Any reasonable proposal to define a list of reliable sources would not be an activity divorced from considerations of how the sources relate to the material. It would begin with categorising material, and then listing reliable sources for each category of material. There would be no time limit to such a project (things would not have to be completed all at once), and it would easily amendable (for good reason, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball). The stated reasons for rejection create this conception that defining reliable sources would involve simply creating a list of sources and saying that all of these are reliable, with no mention of for what they are reliable. This is absurd. Reliable sources, for good reason, are normally treated as reliable only with regards to a particular or type of claim. So, naturally, defining reliable sources in policy would involve defining them as reliable in this regard. So then, I sincerely ask, what is the proper reasoning for rejecting such a proposal?

I suspect a contradiction in any such rejection. I see it this way: We judge frequently what are reliable sources and what are not. We have to, or else we wouldn't be able to apply Wikipedia:Verifiability. So then it's agreed: We know (to some extent) what are reliable sources and what are not. So then a rejection of every guideline which defines reliable sources implicitly or explicitly supposes that merely by writing down our knowledge of reliable sources into a guideline, we commit some error. That is, we have the knowledge, and we communicate it when we reject or accept certain changes to articles, but if we communicate it in the form of a guideline, we, by some mysterious force, err. But there is nothing different about writing down our knowledge of reliable sources in a guideline compared to writing down such on an article talk page. The mystery is pure myth.

Take etymology sections. These are ubiquitous in the encyclopedia and infrequently based on nothing, but frequently based on decent but still ultimately, non-reliable sources, like etymonline.org, or much worse. Making a guideline for what are reliable sources for English etymologies would not be that hard. For example, while you don't say that the Oxford English Dictionary or Klein's Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language is a reliable source for just any claim, it would be a good guideline to treat them as reliable sources for etymological claims. You flesh out the treatment with other reliable sources.

You proceed in defining reliable sources on a topic by topic basis. If some reliable source escapes notice at first, it can be added when it is noticed. If some previously thought reliable source is discovered by the scholarly community to be faulty or for whatever reason can no longer be considered reliable, it can be removed; and this is no fault of the Wikipedia, as we just report the state of scholarship. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Creating a reasonably comprehensive list would require listing tens of thousands of sources, and then maintaining the list as sources age or are superseded. However, on a much smaller scale, some WikiProjects make a list of general reference works that their members have found particularly useful. If you're interested in etymology, then you could talk to WP:WikiProject Linguistics about whether they'd like to produce such a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible Resolution to Spelling Argument?

I know that Wikipedia supports the use of multiple dialects of a certain language within that language's version of the site, but the links provided by the section that mention a perennial proposal to standardize spelling in the terms of only one of these kinds of dialects provide evidence that editors dislike the current conventions because of how they might sow potential confusion among Wikipedia's readers. Could this problem be resolved by creating a template that serves up one version or another of specific words based on the dialects favored by various users when such words' placement in articles might betray such users to the fact that multiple users with differing dialectal tendencies have contributed to the content in their immediate surroundings? Such a template, possibly in the format of {{word variation picker|language-dialect1=regionalvariant1|language-dialect2=regionalvariant1|…}} (as in {{word variation picker|en-us=color|en-gb=colour}},) could work by choosing one of two or more regional variations on a word inside itself based on a user's preferences if these were to include additional language options for dialects not currently available under the MediaWiki software environment. Such new language options for the accommodation of dialects could be presented either as new options alongside the existing ones in the language-selection pop-up menu visible in general preferences or as a second pop-up menu to the right of this currently-existing one that allows users to choose a dialect that exists as part of their selected language.
Just a thought, 
RandomDSdevel (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Templates have been suggested before, but it doesn't really simplify things - it opens up new problems, such as: imagine an English reader, looking through an article about an American color theorist (eg) - what would/should be displayed? Repeat that, for all words / combinations / contexts...

It would also greatly complicate the wikicode of any effected articles.

Hence, we've settled on MOS:ENGVAR and its subsections, as the most practical way forward. –Quiddity (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

As I attempted to explain previously, applying the suggested template message to an article would cause the page's scripts to pick from this template's values based on users' preferences, and users could alter such new settings, which could be placed within the 'Internationalization' section of user preferences' 'User Profile' tab in addition to the current language settings, from their location-based defaults if he or she chose to do. I assume that such a modification to this part of Wikipedia's interface would probably require initial consensus prior to a request for comment, but the new interface elements should settle in nicely with the current ones. After all, the 'Language' pop-up menu could just have any dialects that currently reside within each of the languages which users can currently select form it separated into an adjacent, contextual 'Dialect' pop-up whose contents would vary depending on the language selected in its neighbor. And users could always choose a 'Custom' dialect to set their own preferences if they live in a certain country but use some of its lesser-known conventions. Besides, such a template's use would, of course, be optional due to the fact that it would be a template. Personally, though, I think that it would most likely percolate throughout most of Wikipedia because of its usefulness. For example, the template's existence could be used to consolidate multiple versions of Wikipedias written in the same language but in different dialects into one Wikipedia for that language. And even though the wikicode might be a little overwhelming at first, I bet that everyone would get used to it in the end, especially since it would give templates more visibility for everyday users.

— RandomDSdevel (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

See the hatred for automatic date formatting. This proposal is equally putrid. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Find an automatic dialect translation system (other than humorous) and we will think about it. Let me know when we can read the user's language setting through a template (I think it can be done through the API). --  Gadget850 ^talk 20:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Censor offensive images

Whilst I appreciate that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I can understand the gripe that the inclusion of certain offensive images offer little improvement to the article in which the image has been embedded and that they may only have been posted by another editor for deliberate shock/entertainment value. Would it not be sensible to add something to that section to suggest that an editor might consider removing the image from the article if they do not feel that the image is appropriate/has no benefit to the articles content? Badanagram (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Covered bt WP:CENSOR. --  Gadget850 ^talk 22:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional reason for rejection of the Advertising proposal

I think the following should be added into the Advertising section: ads sometimes cause a web page to be really slow to load, and people sometimes have to wait a really long time to read the text on the page, because the large number of ads, which they did not open the page for the purpose of, contain images which take for ever to load making it impossible to scroll. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has made that argument against including advertising. Anomie⚔ 11:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Move maintenance tags to talk pages

Re: Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Move maintenance tags to talk pages

see also /Archive 1#Move maintenance tags to talk pages

As this has been brought to my attention again, and I notice that no action has been taken since list time I raised it, I am making some alterations so that it describes the situation better. -- PBS (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

From the edit summary "Summarize in normal format". This is not adequate in this case as it leads to text that is not a fair summary and is misleading.

"Rejection" is misleading. There has never been a rejection of this proposal just as there has never been an acceptance of it. The MOS guidance is clear that maintenance tags are to be unless they serve a dual purpose and are of direct benefit to readers (as is the case with {{unreferenced}}. The problem is that some editors create a maintenance template often on their own initiative, or after a conversation on some page or other that may involve less than half a dozen proponents can look at this entry and think that there is a consensus for creating such templates. See for example the new template {{Underlinked}} the discussion to create it involved:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify#No more wikify template 13 editors who discussed the mechanics of the process. AFAICT non of them discussed whether the template should appear in article space or on the article's talk page.
• There was a further discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 24#Category:Articles that need to be wikified where four editors voiced an opinion (of which two were involved in the previous discussion) and it ended with the withdrawal of the proposed new category, and a statement "Alright, I'll go ahead and create the template. I'll call it {{underlinked}} ..." at 06:49, 29 September 2012
• The template {{underlinked}} was created at 07:01, 29 September 2012 and gave as its reason in the edit history the conversation at Template talk:Dead end#Proposal to re-create Template:Internal links. This thread involved two editors who had taken part in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify and neither of them addressed the issues raised by [Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid|Self-references to be avoided]].

This mean that a new template that currently resides at the top of 4388 articles was created in a discussion that involved about 15 editors (no all of whom expressed clear support for a new template), and not one of them raised the issue of placement and that such templates being placed in article space is not supported by the guidance of Self-references to be avoided.

The wording that uses "rejected" can be seen as justification for creating this template (See Template_talk:Underlinked#This template is a bad idea) so it is necessary to modify the wording to make it clear that

• Outcome: No consensus has ever been reached to implement or reject this proposal

-- PBS (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right that no-one discussed where the {{underlinked}} tag should be placed, because we took it for granted that it would go at the top of the article, like every other maintenance tag. Why would this tag be the one exception to the norm? If you want to change the longstanding convention, start an RfC and we'll see where public opinion lies. Attacking one specific template, dragging the argument onto other talk pages, modifying this page to make a point and trying to alter the guidelines to fit your own narrow interpretation... it's just not the appropriate way to bring about a paradigm shift.

Also, regarding your edits to this page, WP:PEREN is not the place to raise new arguments. All it's meant to do is summarise the arguments made in previous discussions. Many of the points you've labeled as "common arguments" haven't been mentioned in any of the linked discussions, as far as I can tell. Can you provide any evidence that these points have been made and supported by others, and aren't just your own opinion? DoctorKubla (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a fairly standard format used on this page, and I have to agree that WhatamIdoing's version matches it. I'm not going to comment on the content of the issue, at this time. I will add diffs below, so that newcomers can understand what y'all are talking about without having to research it themselves, though. —Quiddity (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Options:

• the wording as it was until 1 week ago
• PBS's suggested wording/format
• WhatamIdoing's suggested wording/format

That's what they/we're discussing (for the benefit of newcomers). —Quiddity (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no reason why the version I have edited in can not be edited further but it is misleading to imply that this proposal has been rejected (as it would be to suggest that it has been accepted). -- PBS (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As an alternative I have removed the arguments for and against leaving the section like this. This allows readers of this page to follow the links to the listed debates to read the arguments themselves and come to their own conclusions. -- PBS (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's helpful, and after thinking about it for a few days, I've reverted it.

If there really is no consensus either way, then the item shouldn't be on this page. See the first sentence: "This is a list of things that are frequently proposed on Wikipedia, and have been rejected by the community several times in the past". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Then I will delete it, because the wording to which you have reverted is not representative of the conversations. If it is going to remain on this page, then I think the page must reflect the fact that there is no consensus on this. I think it would be better if the whole page were to be changed to reflect the fact that "This is a list of things that have been proposed on Wikipedia several times in the past" (see also /Archive 1#Standard format change) -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The topic belongs on this page. I've reverted your second deletion of it.

*If you dispute the way the topic is summarized, then continue to edit it, or suggest changes here.

*If you dispute the way this entire page is presented, then work on fixing that, as a separate thread/endeavour.

Simply deleting it, is NOT the way forward. —Quiddity (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how many points of view are represented here. I am happy to have it included on this page providing the summary states that there is no consensus either way. But how do we square that with WhatamIdoing's "If there really is no consensus either way, then the item shouldn't be on this page."? If you think there was ever a consensus on this then please link to the best example of a debate were a consensus exists. -- PBS (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

For the proposal of "Move all maintenance tags to talk pages" - there is strong (near-unanimous) consensus against.

For the proposal of "Move some maintenance tags to talk pages" - there is strong disagreement amongst the supporters, as to which tags would be included, or whether some tags should be moved to the bottom of the articles instead, or to a new meta-page, or just tweaked in size/style/wording. Some even suggest moving items such as {{Todo}} from the talkpage to the articlepage (or at least adding an article-tag that links to the Todo list).

Everybody agrees that tags in general are often-overused. A majority of editors agree that they benefit readers by signalling/reminding of Wikipedia's radical transparency, and of specific problems in specific articles/sections. Tags encourage readers to think (about the work that goes into an encyclopedia), and also increases the probability of them becoming editors (which we sorely need).

For the page as a whole: Almost every section summarizes an issue which has a significant number of supporters/critics, or a high frequency of suggestion. That's the whole point of this page. There is still a "consensus" against the proposals, at this time. - If consensus were split, then the arguments would be continuous and we would all be forced to compromise with each other in some way (for whatever the issue was).

Also: The November 2009 discussion isn't directly about moving tags anywhere. It's about improving the tags, by tweaking the wording to link to and encourage usage of talkpages. Which was done. —Quiddity (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Move all maintenance tags to talk pages" That depends on how you define "maintenance tags". Where do you think that has been proposed and rejectd?
• "There is still a "consensus" against the proposals, at this time." Which proposal?
• The wording says "Reasons for previous rejection" (of all proposals listed and that includes only some for specific types of maintenance templates).

The section then goes on to list "Reasons for previous rejection" while not including reasons for acceptance. This section does not represent a fair summary of the debates that have taken place. -- PBS (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"while not including reasons for acceptance" - The "proposal" section lists the reasons for acceptance - That's the format used throughout this page. If you think it is missing critical points, then add them (in as condensed and neutral a fashion as possible). Here, I'll help:

The current proposal lists:

• "...reduce self-references to Wikipedia, reduce clutter, and reserve article space for information about the subject." - 3 points

Your suggested overhaul from earlier, lists these points:

• 1) "…Self-references…" 2) "Article space is for information on the subject", and "moving editor to editor messages … to the talk page" 3) "…clutter article space…" - 3 points!!!!

Implementation difficulty was never a core objection, so it's not necessary to even mention that. (Change is always complicated, and ALL the proposals on this page would be slightly-somewhat difficult to implement. If something is worth it, then we manage to find a way.)

Now, what points are we not mentioning in the summary, that don't fall into those 3 basic concepts? —Quiddity (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There are retorts to the points made in the paragraph "Reasons for previous rejection" (see for example here). However that is not the major issue which is that as there was no consensus, the bold phrase "Reasons for previous rejection" is incorrect and misleading. -- PBS (talk) 10:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The last discussion was over 2 years ago. If you really believe that there was "no consensus" against the proposal, try bringing it up again.

See how many editors agree in general, and on what points they agree, and on which specific tags they agree are only useful to people who are already editors.

You'll need to present a clear case on how to distinguish which tags are which. (A {{wikify}} tag is what converted me into a regular editor).

Before posting, it might help if you re-read the past discussions, with those problems in mind. —Quiddity (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal seems to be putting putting the cart before the horse (because starting such a conversation to prove a no consensus result could be seen as pointy). Do you think that the last conversation or any of the others produced a consensus one way or the other? Unless you can show that there is a consensus for rejection then either the wording of the section needs to be modified to indicate that there is no consensus or the section needs to be removed. Perhaps the place to start is: of the conversations listed which one do you think clearly shows a consensus for rejecting the proposal? -- PBS (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-reading through the last 5 threads linked in the section... I think the editors who try to simplify the issue, all agree that something needs to be changed (but very few of them agree on what, or how). I think the editors who see all the perspectives, agree that it is more complicated than that. Yes, drive-by-taggers are (sometimes, but not often, and definitely not always) annoying-more-than-helpful. Yes, maintenance tags tend to linger for too long. Yes, not all readers are going to become editors, and us imploring them to do so is unnecessary. Yes, the radical transparency of "announcing all our flaws" improves our reputation and trustability in some ways, and decreases it in other ways. Yes, it is complicated. Yes, you should find someone else to discuss this with, because I'm feeling like this is a waste of time that could be better spent editing the damn articles and fixing the flaws that the maintenance tags are trying to draw our attention to.

Plus, there is consensus in this thread, that the proposal DOES belong on this page. It's also frequently mentioned in most of the past discussions as something that IS, or SHOULD BE listed on this page. As someone else said, it's time to Drop the stick. –Quiddity (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think that Drop the stick is an appropriate link and it is not helpful in trying to reach a consensus.

I have no objection to it being on this page but the presentation must not be biased (which including the bold wording "Reasons for previous rejection" makes it so), or it ought to be removed. As to your assertion that there is a consensus for it to remain on this page (in the current format). How do you draw that inference from the four people who have expressed an opinion two of whom (for different reasons) have suggested that it can be deleted, the other did not object to a change in the wording. AFAICT we have a Mexican stand-off. I want the phrase changed, but failing that it should be deleted, WhatamIdoing wants the wording to remain, but failing that it should be deleted, you want the wording to remain and the section not to be deleted. You seem to accept from you last posting that the proposal has not been rejected so why not agree with a wording such as this:

Move maintenance tags to talk pages

• Proposal: Move maintenance tags such as {{cleanup}}, {{orphan}},and {{POV-check}} from the head of article pages to the article talk pages.

• Previous discussions: Sept 2010, Jan 2009, Nov 2009, Oct 2008, December 2008, March 2008, October 2007

• Outcome: No consensus has ever been reached to implement or reject this proposal

If that wording is not acceptable to you then please explain why so that we can work towards a consensus version that does not include the misleading and inaccurate phrase "reasons for rejection". perhaps we could alter the outcome to include your wording:

• Outcome: No consensus has been reached because while all agree that something needs to be changed, very few of them agree on what, or how.

-- PBS (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing that "all agree" on, in the previous discussions of the proposal.

There is a firm split between those who demand change, and those who think the status quo is complicated but acceptable. Of those who demand change, "very few of them agree on what, or how."

If you want to create the possibility of forward-motion for this proposal, I'd suggest that you start by discovering a way to achieve some consensus amongst the supporters of change; perhaps by clearly delineating which tags would be moved to talkpages, and which deserve to remain on articlepages.

(struck out unwarranted commentary Sorry to all.) –Quiddity (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR: The lead currently says that the proposals listed have "been rejected by the community several times" (ie. not implemented) which is true in this case, and "has been discussed before and never met consensus" which is true in this case. It has been rejected in the past, and there is no consensus. EOD. –Quiddity (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

"Rejected" and "no consensus" are not the same thing. When there is "no consensus" to move a page or to delete a page it is marked as such. That is distinct from a consensus to move or retain, or a consensus to delete or keep. As many editors are familiar with that terminology they naturally assume that if there is a "rejection" instead of "no conensus", that there must have been a consensus against a proposals. The proof of this is people linking to this section as if it proves that the community has rejected this proposal. -- PBS (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, "If you dispute the way this entire page [ie the lead] is presented, then work on fixing that, as a separate thread/endeavour." FWIW, this page covers a variety of things (it's a collection of perennial proposals that have not been implemented), and if a language change in the lead will make that clearer, then let's discuss and tweak it. –Quiddity (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've seen people assert that "all" maintenance templates ought to be moved to the talk pages. Presumably they don't mean that {{fact}} and the like should be moved, but that is what they've said. I don't think it's reasonable to put forward PBS's proposal as if it were the only one.

I also think that it might be worth noting if any specific templates started out in the mainspace and then were later relegated to talkspace. I don't know the history, but {{Photo requested}} might be one such maintenance template. While the general proposal has been rejected, it's possible that specific templates have been approved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem WhatamIdoing is there is no precise definition of what "maintenance tags/templates" means, and when you question people on this they would not usually include such things as {{fact}} which are primarily a warning to readers. What they mean by maintenance template things like this: {{new page}} (a truly awful example as it will usually be placed on a small stub) -- PBS (talk) 08:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem, PBS, is that none of the advocates of the proposal have ever put together a comprehensive list of what "maintenance tags/templates" means. They just mention a specific example or two, and expect everyone else to understand intuitively/completely what the rest of the list of tags comprises [those that are obviously just for maintenance and deserve to be moved to the talkpage].

To repeat myself: I strongly recommend that you put together a list, of exactly which templates you/anyone is including in the proposal, for the next go-round. It's the only way the idea will get traction. WAIM's suggestion of researching/listing any specific templates that used to be in mainspace but are now placed on talkpages (ie, precedent), is also very good. –Quiddity (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, whether {{Orphan}} belongs on talk or article pages is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013_January_5#Template:Orphan_placement_discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a timely heads up for User:Quiddity (in case you are not aware of the conversation and want to join in). There is a new discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 108#Proposal to move the Orphan tags to the talk page which is close to SNOW, and not just for {{Orphan}} but for maintenance tags in general. Once that discussion is closed it will be time to make large alterations to the wording of the section in this page under discussion. -- PBS (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

@PBS: (1) Thanks for the ping :) (2) I see consensus for change regarding the orphan tags (which I've added to), but no consensus (there's barely any mention) of changing anything regards "maintenance tags in general". This is an inch not a mile. –Quiddity (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Include successful proposals which went nowhere?

By focusing on rejected proposals, this article misses out on perennials which are approved by the community but which still produce no action. This article provides a valuable research pivot point; one hopes it could assist future proposers in avoiding pitfalls present in both the failed and successful-but-failed proposals. Specifically, "Userspace drafts" concepts like Allowing users to keep private drafts of their work and its current followup WP:VPR#Proposed new Draft namespace. Is there room here for these, and a little rewriting in the lead? These aspirationals could be in a separate section. --Lexein (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Bump? --Lexein (talk) 09:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Myself I do not see that as the purpose of this page. This page just lists rejected proposals; once a proposal is accepted it is taken off this list. meshach (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Useful to know. --Lexein (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC) I contend that approved but abandoned has the same outcome as rejected. --Lexein (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Gender identity

Any discussion on whether trying to change the gender-related rule in section 16.6 of WP:MOS should be added to this page?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Inappropriate timeframe in which to even consider this. The Jenner media frenzy has resulted in waves of activism (both pro and con) on the issue. Village pump is awash in this stuff, and it's not at all certain what the consensus will eventually be, nor how long it will last. What looked like a stable consensus is actually turning out to have some unforeseen consequences that not everyone is okay with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)