View source for Wiki143:Village pump (miscellaneous)

<noinclude>{{Short description|Central discussion page for topics not covered by specific topic pages}}
{{Village pump page header|Miscellaneous|alpha=yes|The '''miscellaneous''' section of the [[Wikipedia:Village pump|village pump]] is used to post messages that do not fit into any other category. Please post on the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)|policy]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)|technical]], or [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)|proposals]] sections when appropriate, or at the [[Wikipedia:Help desk|help desk]] for assistance. For general knowledge questions, please use the [[WP:reference desk|reference desk]].

For '''questions about a wiki that is not the English Wikipedia''', please post at [[m:Wikimedia Forum]] instead.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for {{Th/abp|age|{{{root|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|cfg={{{cfg|1}}}|round=y}} {{Th/abp|units|{{{root|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|cfg={{{cfg|1}}}|round=y}}.|WP:VPM|WP:VPMISC}}
<!--
 
-->__NEWSECTIONLINK__<!--
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 44
|algo = old(7d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive %(counter)d
}}-->{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
|header={{Wikipedia:Village pump/Archive header}}
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=192
|numberstart=44
|minkeepthreads= 5
|maxarchsize= 250000
}}
<!--

-->{{centralized discussion|compact=yes}}__TOC__<div style="clear:both;" id="below_toc"></div>
[[Category:Wikipedia village pump]]
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]
[[Category:Pages automatically checked for incorrect links]]</noinclude>

== Automatic map generation from Wikidata ==

Hi, it recently [[Template talk:Infobox civilian attack|came to my attention]] that some infoboxes were recently changed to automatically generate maps '''without any map parameter in the infobox wikitext''' or '''any coordinates stated in the article''' (they are automatically fetched from Wikidata if not present in the article). I have numerous concerns with this approach, including the following points:
#The maps appear in the articles without any watchlist notifications to alert editors to their presence
#It is very difficult for editors to understand why the maps appeared and how to get rid of them
#This change was implemented by one editor without any broader discussion or consensus
#Coordinates, particularly those hosted on Wikidata, rarely have a reliable source to support them
#There is a high likelihood of the maps being wrong or misleading, including the case that I observed this behavior.

I believe that maps should be manually chosen by editors based what format is most accurate to convey the information available in reliable sources without misleading our readers or amplifying original research. I would like to get some more opinions whether generating maps by default in this manner is a good idea. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color:red">b</span><span style="color:#EF6305">u</span><span style="color:#FEE907">I</span><span style="color:green">d</span><span style="color: #0141F3">h</span><span style="color:#800080">e</span>]]''' 16:18, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

:I've been discussing with a few other editors (@[[User:Viriditas|User:Viriditas]], @[[User:Odysseus1479|User:Odysseus1479]]) about the issues with maps on Wikipedia. I'm working on a proposal for the pump (or somewhere), but in short, the state of maps on Wikipedia is a disaster of [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]] that would not be tolerated anywhere else on the project. They fail to follow the most basic cartographic conventions involving symbolization, projection, and sourcing. Many of the maps on the project are making mistakes that the most polite literature would describe as "misleading," and I have citations that point to places maps making these mistakes have lead to public misconceptions resulting in very negative consequences. The gist of the proposal I've been working on is that we need to work to work to improve [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Conventions]] and move them from the project space into [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Media_files]]. When I say improve the Wikiproject Maps conventions, I mean completely overhaul and in many places start from complete scratch. They do not actually mirror the conventions of cartography in the real world, and are woefully incomplete. I would recommend the book [[How to Lie with Maps]] to anyone interested in where I'm coming from. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 20:06, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
::I think this could be reasonably generalized to most media.  We insist (with varying degrees of success) that the article text be backed up by [[WP:RS]], but images and their captions rarely receive such scrutiny.  I once objected to an image caption at [[WP:FAC]]; it was a photo of a tropical fish and asserted what gender it was.  I asked for backup on that and was basically shouted down with "Of course that's a <whatever gender>" but nary a WP:RS to back it up.  This sort of thing happens a lot.  So, I certainly support improving the situation for maps, but would encourage you to think a little broader if possible. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 23:26, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, my expertise is pretty limited to maps. I have some graphic design background, and some background in the graphs used in general statistics that comes from experience with spatial statistics, but taking on all images is a bit beyond me. If others want to help expand, I'm all for it. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 04:59, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
::This sounds like a reference to maps on Wikipedia in general, not to mapframe rendering?
::The mapframe project has been conservative by default, and never enabling that sort of a map when there is an existing map in the infobox already.
::Often times, that ends up keeping an old bad map in the article while a more appropriate mapframe stays hidden. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
:No, this doesn't seem like a good idea, for the reasons you mention. [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 03:58, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
:An additional concern is that there is no indicator that the information is coming from Wikidata. With some Wikidata infoboxes there is an icon next to information to take editors to the relevant Wikidata property, but that does not seem to be the case here. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 09:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
::That is actually interesting, because every mapframe does show links to terms of use of Wikimedia Maps and OpenStreetMap, but it doesn't mention Wikidata if it's used. @[[User:Hike395|Hike395]] is it possible for us to edit how {{tl|Infobox mapframe}} shows the bottom right label in Kartographer? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:42, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Joy}} Not that I know of -- that is under the control of Kartographer and I don't see any obvious parameters to change it. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 03:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)
*Oh great… yet another problematic use of Wikidata.  Will we never learn. Wikidata Delenda Est! [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 14:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
**[[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]], [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] are you just against the generation of maps from Wikidata, or do you also oppose when maps are generated automatically (no parameter in infobox) from coordinates placed in the article?  ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color:red">b</span><span style="color:#EF6305">u</span><span style="color:#FEE907">I</span><span style="color:green">d</span><span style="color: #0141F3">h</span><span style="color:#800080">e</span>]]''' 01:36, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
**:I'm sure I could be convinced that some maps might be helpful, and to treat Wikidata in a similar way to a template space, but we shouldn't be generating anything out of the control of the page editors. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 03:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
**::The inclusion of mapframes in infoboxes is always preferring any local information to that on Wikidata. So for example if an infobox template is set up to go to Wikidata for a coordinates property, if the editor of the article includes {{para|coordinates}} in the infobox call, that always overrides any equivalent point on Wikidata.
**::It should be noted that the reason why Wikidata can be really useful is usually not the ''points'', but the ''shapes'' on maps. Our local mechanisms for showing map shapes are rather difficult to use, so they're very rare. The availability of these OSM map shapes - still modifiable with {{para|mapframe-shape}} and similar parameters, mind - has improved infobox map thumbnails in numerous articles. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
**::The problem with treating Wikidata like template space is that they're a separate project and don't have to follow Wikipedia's policies, guidelines or consensuses. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

:Does anyone have a link or three to any affected articles? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:00, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Herero_and_Nama_genocide&oldid=1325482212] Here is where I noticed the problem. It took me quite a while to figure out why the map was showing up and how to get rid of it. Note that the location isn't correct. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color:red">b</span><span style="color:#EF6305">u</span><span style="color:#FEE907">I</span><span style="color:green">d</span><span style="color: #0141F3">h</span><span style="color:#800080">e</span>]]''' 01:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Is that the correct link?  I don't see a map on that page. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:27, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
:Why did you not link the previous discussion at [[Template talk:Infobox civilian attack]], where several of these claims have already been disputed at length?
:I agree that maps appearing in the articles without any watchlist notifications to alert editors to their presence is not good. I'd have loved it if this visibility was possible. At the same time, this is how template editing works in general - we don't get notifications about any other template edits, either. Also, in that example, we identified over 2,000 of mapframe coordinates being enabled by the template edits, and you found a visual problem with 1. That is not proof of this being a universally bad situation.
:I disagree that it would be difficult for editors to understand the situation post res. They can click on the confusing element in the visual editor and learn about the updates with a modicum of effort. If they use the source editor, they see which infobox template is used and they can likewise read the updated documentation.
:Any change in every infobox does have to be implemented by a single editor, which is how [[WP:Be bold]] works. At the same time, this particular change in mapframes is based on numerous previous discussions collectively tracked at [[Wikipedia:Mapframe maps in infoboxes]]. I've made a lot of effort to document the process and that it always includes checking for applicability, updating template documentation, etc.
:There is nothing particular about Wikidata coordinates that makes them more or less verifiable. They are equally as supported or unsupported by reliable sources on Wikipedia, too. (In the one problematic example you identified, we actually know that they came from another language Wikipedia.)
:There is no proof that there is a high likelihood of the maps being wrong or misleading. We added many thousands of maps, and I've noticed a handful of complaints. Your complaint at the genocide article was about weird zoom level - the map did show the right place, but it was zoomed in too much which made it look like we're describing an event that happened in one specific place, where the original intent was to show the country where it happened, yet that intent wasn't preserved correctly through the conversion of technical attributes.
:I think we would be wise to consider this situation in its entirety, as opposed to focusing way too much on one interpretation of one problem. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 08:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
::No, there is no way for me to click on the map frame and figure out that why it's appearing and how  I get rid of it. All I see is the map itself.
::And no, the coordinates for the gonocide article were not an accurate representation of where the genocide took place. I'm baffled why you continue to insist that this is the case when you seem to have no knowledge about the topic.
::The lack of transparency is why you should seek consensus from editors who use templates rather than edit them a lot, before rolling out a significant change that will affect many articles.
::If you thought maps were beneficial you could have just added support for map frames, and gone through articles individually where you thought they would be helpful, adding mapframe=yes. You chose to make it appear in a non-transparent way, which is why we're here. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color:red">b</span><span style="color:#EF6305">u</span><span style="color:#FEE907">I</span><span style="color:green">d</span><span style="color: #0141F3">h</span><span style="color:#800080">e</span>]]''' 16:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
:::I'm astonished to discover that in [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mapframe maps in infoboxes#Q2. Display|the discussion you seem to be referring to]] where the community weighed in on map frames, the discussion was closed by {{u|Wugapodes}} as "mapframes should not be on by default".  That's all I'm asking for! ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color:red">b</span><span style="color:#EF6305">u</span><span style="color:#FEE907">I</span><span style="color:green">d</span><span style="color: #0141F3">h</span><span style="color:#800080">e</span>]]''' 16:52, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
::::We've been over this already over there - that set of coordinates was originally significantly rounded up and zoomed out in order to show just the country, which it did. The later Wikidata bot import failed to account for that. I agree with you that what was shown wasn't an accurate representation of where the genocide took place, and that's why I also fixed both. You've ignored all that and just continued to argue against the notion of including these. I don't think this is productive.
::::Going through thousands of articles that already have the coordinates parameter and adding an explicit extra parameter is a huge waste of volunteer effort for something that can be done in a more general manner. Also, it might annoy a lot of people if we litter their watchlists with a huge number of automated edits like that.
::::With regard to the RFC, I interpret [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mapframe_maps_in_infoboxes&diff=prev&oldid=972620503 no consensus to turn on by default] in the site-wide RFC as a site-wide lack of consensus. Why would this have to mean that we're barred from examining each individual infobox situation in context?
::::So, to be clear, I'm absolutely happy to agree with a consensus at [[Template talk:Infobox civilian attack]] about that feature (or indeed any different kind). So far, I've observed one person, yourself, arguing how the feature is a bad idea by default over a very specific set of circumstances that do not match the majority of the use cases of that template. That discussion isn't complete, and we do not have a settled consensus for or against the feature.
::::In this discussion here, we have a few more people chiming in, but it's not clear that y'all have the same perspective. For example, @[[User:GeogSage|GeogSage]]'s comment seems to be a general criticism of the state of infobox maps, not the mapframe option default at Infobox civilian attack. We should figure this out. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 17:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::?? It looks like you added this mapframe feature as default to many infoboxes, in explicit violation of a discussion consensus  that you seem to be aware of, and you refuse to acknowledge that there was any mistake made or course correction needed? I hate to say it but perhaps it's time for ANI. ([[User talk:Buidhe|t]] &#183; [[Special:Contributions/Buidhe|c]]) '''[[User:buidhe|<span style="color:red">b</span><span style="color:#EF6305">u</span><span style="color:#FEE907">I</span><span style="color:green">d</span><span style="color: #0141F3">h</span><span style="color:#800080">e</span>]]''' 18:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::I examined each of these cases individually. In this case, there was no indication of controversy whatsoever, so I tried it out. The RFC was four years ago, and consensus can change - I figured it was time to try it out. And the attempt seemed to be a great success, because if we have over 2,000 new map thumbnails, and you found a bug in 1 of them, that sounds the outcome could be very good for the readers. I have no idea why you find this so objectionable just because of these relatively minor editor inconveniences that we can still iron out. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 18:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::BTW, in the meantime the closer of the same discussion said my reading of the lack of consensus there was reasonable in [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1209#c-Wugapodes-20251215045000-Buidhe-20251215035000|a separate discussion]]. In another instance, [[User_talk:Joy#c-Hike395-20251218171100-2020_mapframe_RfC|another editor told me]] they think differently, and that we should probably have another RFC. Given this experience, I think I'll start something, probably here, but have the scope narrow enough that there's less of a chance of ambiguity with different combinations of outcomes. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 23:21, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::[[File:Sudan (orthographic projection) highlighted.svg|thumb|Current Sudan map]]
:::::[[File:Sudan (orthographic projection).svg|thumb|Previous Sudan map]]
:::::Yes, the state of maps in our infoboxes is quite dire. My favorite example of this, while we are on topic, is Sudan (pictured). Sudan has border disputes with several neighboring states, and the original map did not include these disputes. The updated map has added them in a light green color, which on the surface seems logical. However, there is '''no source''' for how the maps author created the disputed area, ''no source'' for the original boundaries, and if you look at the image history on the previous Sudan map, you can see that there have been some major changes to reflect its borders that also do not have any citations. Borders are human artifacts, and not everyone agrees on where they are, thus we ALWAYS need to cite what our boundary source is. Failure to cite is either plagiarism, synthesis, or original research (or all three at once). Even if there is a source somewhere on Wikipedia for the original file, a user should not have to dig for it, and I haven't found one yet. This is one example that highlights this issue particularly well, but it is the state of many, if not most, of our maps. We should not have maps created by amateurs demarcating things like international borders at all, there are plenty of files freely available from reputable sources like the U.S. State Department and United Nations. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 18:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::Okay, so you're not arguing against this specific instance of using mapframe maps, rather you're seeing the problem with the big picture. We can address these sorts of problems in a variety of manners. It's rather confusing that it's exactly ''with'' Wikidata that there's an inherent possibility to depend on only items that are referenced. Yet Wikidata seems to get a lot of hate from editors despite this. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 18:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Yeah, problem is with the big picture. The references need to be transparent, using Wikidata to generate maps without explicitly stating the source Wikidata is using clearly somewhere on the map is a problem. For example, where are we getting the coordinates for things included in Wikidata in the first place? Are users just jumping on OpenStreetMap, selecting the location, and entering the coordinates? Is there a published list of coordinates? Have we standardized where we are capturing the coordinates from (for example, the geographic centroid, the median center, the left corner, etc.). [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 19:56, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|1=there are plenty of files freely available from reputable sources like the U.S. State Department and United Nations.}}<br>The problem with that might be that these maps may fall afoul of [[WP:NPOV]], because they promote, e.g., what the US's and UN's stances on a geographical area are. For example, the US government decided to recognize the [[Gulf of Mexico]] as "Gulf of America" earlier this year, but this has been controversial - see [[Gulf of Mexico naming controversy]]. If we were to use the US government's maps, we would be adopting their stance on that matter (i.e. maps that label the gulf as the "Gulf of America"), which can be inherently a NPOV violation. &ndash; [[User:Epicgenius|Epicgenius]] ([[User talk:Epicgenius|talk]]) 16:16, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Related to that, I used to work for a network management company.  Part of our product was the big map you see in [[Network operations center|NOC]]s showing what stuff was up and what stuff was down.  We produced differently labeled maps based on what country a particular customer was in. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 16:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
::Buidhe's complaint about the map was more that it showed a specific point at all, from my reading. A specific point for an event like that will not be accurate. Now, this does not apply to the vast majority of usages of that infobox, and I don't really get why we would be using the terrorism infobox on a topic like genocide. But I also don't think these maps help anything. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 16:49, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Thank you for recognizing the nuance.
:::For the terrorist attacks, the majority of usages, if a map doesn't help, does it make sense to have coordinates listed there at all? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 17:39, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
::::Having coordinates attached to an article can be useful for all sorts of tools.  For example, [[meta:WikiShootMe]]. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 17:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::Tools need to be useful to Wikipedia… not the other way around. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 18:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::I think the intent was to say that these tools can be useful to readers.
::::::Going back to the original topic of what we get with rendering coordinates with mapframes, when we have that thumbnail in the infobox, a click on it brings up a bigger map screen where the reader can immediately see the button Show nearby articles.
::::::So for example with this sort of an infobox, the civilian attack one, we can have a mapframe at [[Oklahoma City bombing]], and then the reader can click to see the location on that map, and after clicking that button they can see e.g. links to ''[[And Jesus Wept]]'', [[National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism]], [[The Heritage (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)|The Heritage]] and a number of other articles that seem relevant in context, and presumably of interest to readers.
::::::For whatever reason, the default coordinate link to Geohack doesn't seem to enable this functionality for readers. --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 19:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
::::No, I said it does work for the majority of usages, but there are always going to be edge cases like this. Even if coordinates are helpful, I don't think autogenerating a map always is. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 19:33, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::Okay. Is there any way we could filter for the edge cases, perhaps?
:::::Maybe in case of civilian attacks, the {{para|type}} parameter could be used to decide on the defaults, or something like that? Meaning, if we see {{para|type|genocide}}, we should skip the map rendering by default because of the risk of unfocused coordinates, but if we see {{para|type|mass shooting}} the risk is lower because the events are typically more localized?
:::::Or, depending on the type, change the default zoom - for genocides, show country-level maps and drop the point marker, but for mass shootings show city-level maps and keep the point marker?
:::::Or, maybe to follow up on your original contention - find every use of {{para|type|genocide}} and make a list, and then use that to ponder the creation of a separate {{tl|Infobox genocide}} instead? --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 19:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::Personally I agree - if the problem is overstretching the usage of the infobox template into a place it doesn't really belong, maybe we need 2 infoboxes. I think the mapframe can be helpful, but it depends on the article. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 21:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

As it happens, I missed the fact that it looks like the Wikidata interaction in particular here is a fresh bug. I've brought it up at [[Template talk:Infobox mapframe#mapframe-wikidata implicitly on, instead of off?]] --[[User:Joy|Joy]] ([[User talk:Joy|talk]]) 12:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

== Adding link for Legal and Safety Contacts on English Wikipedia Footer ==

Hello everyone, 

Many countries require websites to show clear contact information for legal and safety reasons. For example, in the European Union, contact information is [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02000L0031-20240217#art_5 required by Article 5 of the eCommerce Directive]. Wikimedia projects have handled this variably (see [[wikidata:Q4980478]] and [[wikidata:Q4654783]]) resulting in inconsistencies and outdated or missing details. We have missed court notices due to this. 

To fix this, the Wikimedia Foundation has created a single '''“[[foundation:Legal:Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_and_Safety_Contact_Information|Legal and Safety Contacts”]]''' page, and will add a link to it at the end of each wiki page. This will ensure that everyone has access to accurate and up to date Legal contact information. If wikis have existing “Contact” pages and links, the community should update these to prevent confusion. We will insert the new links to different wikis in stages, based on our assessment of legal risk and necessity; the first six footers to change will be on German, Spanish, French, English, Italian and Polish Wikipedia by 19 December 2025. 

For further background, see [[metawiki:Wikimedia_Foundation_Legal_and_Safety_Contacts_FAQ|this Frequently Asked Questions page]]

Posted on behalf of [[User:PBradley-WMF|Phil Bradley-Schmieg]], Lead Counsel Wikimedia Foundation –– [[User:STei (WMF)|STei (WMF)]] ([[User talk:STei (WMF)|talk]]) 11:58, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

:This is {{done}}.  Anyone who wants to see it can scroll to the bottom of this page. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:43, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] thank you! –– [[User:STei (WMF)|STei (WMF)]] ([[User talk:STei (WMF)|talk]]) 15:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
:I've started a related discussion at {{slink|Wikipedia talk:Contact us#Adding a link to the WMF Legal and Safety Contact page}}. [[User:Jlwoodwa|jlwoodwa]] ([[User talk:Jlwoodwa|talk]]) 23:25, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

== Whale blocks ==

Some recent blocks of long-term users with very large edit counts got me wondering (and a little sad).  I'm sure somebody with better SQL skills than me can improve on it, but https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/100170 is a summary of the users with over 100k edits that we've indef blocked. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 22:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
:I think that that only goes to show what I already knew, that quantity of edits has very little relation to quality. I'm a little surprised to see a few of the names in that list, but generally I would say that the blocks/bans were long overdue. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 23:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for producing that interesting report.  Wikipedia is undoubtedly better off without certain individuals who repeatedly inconvenienced and distressed other editors.  However, I also see a few treasured colleagues who made the mistake of following many years of selfless dedication with one minor lapse.  Our harshness may have cost Wikipedia dearly. [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 23:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC)
::Unfortunately, this is a poorly thought out numbers game. Assume that every 1,000 edits, a person has a lapse in judgment leading to some dispute. Most disputes don't lead to a ban, however as time progresses, the list of editors a person has rubbed the wrong way grows. Early in an editors "career," they are more likely to make simple mistakes. Later in their career, they may be exasperated by the simple mistakes of others (especially if long term consensus is suddenly over turned or challenged). With the initial assumption of one lapse in judgment per 1,000 edits, an editor with 100,000 edits has a list of 100 things they've done wrong (along with editors who might remember them poorly and wish to see them gone), and with experience they may lack patience in discussions. From a conspiracy theory standpoint, I would not be surprised at all if some 3rd party organizations actively targeted "whale" editors in attempts to get them sanctioned. A whale is likely to have made edits that have irritated corporations, countries, religions, or other groups with time and money to throw around. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 06:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
:::So... the moral of the story is that we need to get people through RFA before they make too many edits, because if they wait too long, they'll have accumulated too many enemies? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:17, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
::::I mean, that is one viewpoint to have. One major problem is that Wikipedia is change adverse and makes it very hard for minority opinions to be adequately heard/defended without risking the accusation of [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing]]. This is particularly hard on subject matter experts, who are trying to explain a point with people that refuse to bend their view when given new information, if they bother to read the information at all (policy discourages long thought out posts on a topic, so someone trying to explain something complex will have to deal with being told they're using to many words when few do trick). The consensus policy is supposed to be based around the contents of arguments, not a head count, however that is not really the practice in my experience. While the Civility policy makes sense in a lot of cases, it leads to an environment that feels like working in an open air office with an HR representative, political activists from all major parties, and a prude who is looking for reasons to be offended. Different regional dialects of English, and different education levels, will have different ways of speaking, and I've seen people get called out for things that appear like normal ways of speaking. The longer someone is an editor, the more of an advocate for changing things, the more they call out systemic bias, and the more involved they are with topics that might be controversial or outside the realm of an average persons knowledge base, the more likely someone is to cherry pick a list of things they've done and and [[WP:SMEAR]] someone to [[Wikipedia:POV railroad|"discredit an editor with an opposing viewpoint or to eliminate them from a discussion"]]. We make it entirely to easy to [[Exile]] someone from Wikipedia, it seriously looks '''exactly''' like [[Ostracism]] in Ancient Athens, and we have all the same problems in Wikipedia that emerged from that historic (and barbaric) practice. Someone gets on the wrong side of a mob, old grudges resurface, stuff gets taken out of context or presented in the worst possible light, and emotional reactions to being in a stressful situation in the replies from the editor in question are chum in the water for sharks looking to take down a whale. An editor with 100K edits over a decade is exiled, and everyone pats themselves on the back. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 04:41, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't think I've read [[Wikipedia:POV railroad]] before.  It sounds like a pretty realistic description of how we handle editors promoting (e.g.,) pseudoscience or other views that we have low tolerance for.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 21:44, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::It's how editors handle minority views, in general. Even if they are fairly benign, backed by citations, and/or reference Wikipedia policy, essays, precedent. Even if it is just two against one, one of the two in the majority is likely to invoke [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing]] accusations or some form of [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering]]. Wikipedia, with all of its necessity to have open dialog, really makes it hard to actually have a thorough and open discussion on a topic. The project is generally more concerned with these rules then combating misinformation or factual accuracy. It is much easier to keep the peace by giving into majority rule then actually forming a consensus '''based on sources.''' [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 08:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Is there anyone on this list who was affected by {{tq|corporations, countries, religions, or other groups with time and money to throw around}} that we're aware of? [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#487d30">Thebiguglyalien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#714e2a">talk</span>]]) [[Special:Contributions/Thebiguglyalien|🛸]] 06:27, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
::::I mean, anyone who has edited a controversial article could be singled out, but if corporations, countries, religions, or other groups with time and money to throw around wanted to be disruptive to Wikipedia (for whatever reason), then singling out "whales" would be a good place to start. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 07:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:And Roy, I think you are being a little too modest. When it comes to techie stuff many users are blind, so, even if you have only one eye, you are king. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 13:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)
:Surprised to see that many sock blocks. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 06:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
:This was a very unpleasant way to find out what happened to some users I'd thought I'd just not run into for a while.  (And even unpleasanter for a few minutes before I realized I was confusing Cirt with Certes.) —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 02:55, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

== Lists of massacres by country ==

I was about to nominate an article for deletion when I realized it was one of a hundred pages in a series: [[:Category:Lists of massacres by country]]. I don't think we should have any articles that list events based on a POV descriptor, but I wanted to open a discussion first to get some other thoughts on it given how many of them there are. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#487d30">Thebiguglyalien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#714e2a">talk</span>]]) [[Special:Contributions/Thebiguglyalien|🛸]] 06:24, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

:See also [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of events named massacres]] [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2025-42659-31|&#126;2025-42659-31]] ([[User talk:&#126;2025-42659-31|talk]]) 01:40, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
::There is a  [[List of lists of massacres by country]], but until just now it wasn't linked from [[Massacre]].
::The by-country lists are a mixed bag - is [[Paris police headquarters stabbing]], where someone killed 4 colleagues, a "massacre"? It's in [[List of massacres in France]]. There isn't a UK list so I couldn't see whether [[Dunblane massacre]], one of our mercifully rare school shootings (and which led to gun control changes) would be included. [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 11:08, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Ah, just found [[List of massacres in Great Britain]], which allows  [[List of massacres in Ireland]] to include those on the whole island including Northern Ireland. And yes, Dunblane is included. [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 11:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
::::[[List of massacres in Great Britain]] includes many events not named as "massacre" but mostly probably fitting any definition as such, with body counts ranging from 100,000 for [[Harrying of the North]] (the article actually suggests 150,000) to 3 in [[2024 Southport stabbings]] (not sure whether that horror was a "massacre"? If it had been young men at a party rather than little girls at a dance class it wouldn't have attracted much interest). [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 12:04, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
:As you're proposing to mass delete a hundred articles, this should be a formal [[WP:RfC]]. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 11:13, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
:So long as the definition used for [[WP:LISTCRIT]] is objective, I don't see a particular issue. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 11:36, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
:Thoughts fwiw.
:*The community evidently believes that Wikipedia should have lists and categories based on POV descriptors like massacre, terrorist etc. How many POV descriptors are used in this way? More than one. 
:*This fondness many appear to have for POV labels obviously impacts content at all scales and in many contexts.
:*For [[WP:LISTCRIT]], it is difficult to see how to apply an objectivity test for labels that are subjective/completely dependent on point of view. I suppose a simple objectivity test that pushes the question down the decision tree could be 'does the page title contain the word <POV descriptor>?'
:*[[Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists]] mentions words like 'value' and 'useful', but it doesn't spell out what these things actually mean. And I don't think it is self-evident in cases that use POV labels. So, it is difficult to know whether what some may regard as POV labels are okay for lists. [[Wikipedia:Categorization|For categories]], it's different. The guideline explicitly states, 'The primary purpose of the categorization system on Wikipedia is to provide navigational links within a structured, tree-like hierarchy of categories.' So, for me personally, it is okay (but not ideal) for people to use POV labels for categories because they have a functional role, like redirects. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 15:34, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
::The question is not "is a label subjective?". The question is "what is the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] of the event?" {{cl|Massacres}} contains hundreds of articles called "massacres". I don't imagine they all violate [[WP:COMMONNAME]]. <span style="display:inline-block;position:relative;transform:rotate(-3deg);bottom:-.1em;">[[user:Paradoctor|Paradoctor]]</span> ([[user talk:Paradoctor|talk]]) 16:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
:::^ This.  
:::First you decide what the article/list is going to be about.  Then you decide what to call it.  [[Wikipedia:Article titles and scopes]] are separate things.  It is important in this process to separate "I can't believe they used that word in the title!" from "Should there be a list that contains these items?" [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:45, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
:: {{tq|The community evidently believes}} Maybe, maybe not. We have plenty of [[WP:ACTIVIST]]s running around. Sometimes their activism doesn't come to others' attention, sometimes there are enough that any discussion winds up as a huge "no consensus" mess, and occasionally there are enough of them on one side that they establish their view as consensus in an area. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 17:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)
::{{tq|For WP:LISTCRIT, it is difficult to see how to apply an objectivity test for labels that are subjective/completely dependent on point of view}} We can call these events massacres in their article or the title of the article, so whatever criteria we use to do that (probably some invocation of [[WP:DUE]]) could be one way to determine whether they are included in the list. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 22:49, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
:::An accurate description for the majority of these lists would probably be {{tq|Lists of events sometimes described as 'massacres' in English-language sources concerning killings in countries where the word 'massacre' isn't in the local language}}. This isn't just subjective, it is subjectivity imposed from the outside, through the arbitrary use of an unrelated language as a criteria. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 22:59, 26 December 2025 (UTC)
::::And not all of the massacres in English-speaking countries are so named. [[User:PamD|<span style="color: green">'''''Pam'''''</span>]][[User talk:PamD|<span style="color: brown">'''''D'''''</span>]] 00:42, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::And not all of the things called massacres are actually massacres ("How did the team do last night?"  "It was a massacre!  We won 77 to zero!").
:::::The real question, in terms of XFD processes, isn't whether there should be a [[List of massacres in France]], but whether there should be any list, under any name, that includes [[Abbeville massacre]], [[Le Paradis massacre]], [[Siege of Minerve]], [[Paris coup d'état and massacres of 1418]], [[St. Bartholomew's Day massacre]], etc.
:::::It's all very well and good to say that we ought to called it a "List of slaughters in Italy", since the Latin-derived term seems to be more common than the imported ''il massacro'' in that language, or even to rename it to something like "List of mass killings of primarily helpless or unresisting people", but this discussion started with someone saying "I was about to nominate an article for deletion".  Experienced editors don't nominate articles for deletion just to get the article title changed.  The first question therefore is whether the lists should exist ''at all'', and not what that list should be called. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::Agreed. And given that this thread starts "I was about to nominate an article for deletion...", that seems to be what we are discussing, unless I've missed something. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 05:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
:Was wondering whether events by said POV descriptor are covered as a set by reliable sources ([[WP:NLIST]]), but it seems such a subjective term than any firm definition would likely also lead to a clearer title. I think this goes to WhatamIdoing's point, what is the actual topic? [[List of massacres in Afghanistan]] for example (first country in the list alphabetically) does not enlighten in its lead. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 07:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
::I assume that the topic is meant to be (and is, with varying levels of success) a list of events which fit the definition that [[Massacre]]:  "A '''massacre''' is an event of killing people or animals who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless. It is generally used to describe a targeted mass killing of [[Civilian|civilians]] by an armed group."  Wiktionary says "The killing of a considerable number (usually limited to people) where little or no resistance can be made, with indiscriminate violence, without necessity, and/or contrary to civilized norms".   
::If [[WP:LISTCRIT]] aren't spelled out (which can be done on the talk page), then a dictionary definition is usually a fair place to start.  Several comments on [[Talk:List of massacres in Afghanistan]] suggests that editors don't believe battles belong in that list.  I've pinged one.  [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:25, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

== Merry Christmas  ==

I just want to wish you all merry Christmas. I hope you enjoy your holiday and have good time with the people you love. [[User:ObamaForever2008|ObamaForever2008]] ([[User talk:ObamaForever2008|talk]]) 02:55, 25 December 2025 (UTC)

== Spring Month Edit-a-thon 2026 ==

Hello everyone,

[[m:WMGMC|Wikimedians' Group of Mainland China]] is planning to host the Spring Month Edit-a-thon on the Chinese Wikipedia during [[Zhengyue|the first month of the lunar calendar]] in 2026, aims to encourage editors to contribute content related to the various traditions and customs of the [[Lunar New Year]].

As the Lunar New Year is a significant festival celebrated by many Asian communities worldwide, we sincerely invite the English Wikipedia communities to join us in this celebration. Together, we can document the diverse Lunar New Year traditions from across the globe on Wikipedia.

If your community is interested in co-hosting this event, please feel free to contact us to discuss the details. The organizers have prepared postcards as rewards for participants. Members who help organize the event on their local Wikipedia are also eligible to receive these postcards.

We look forward to your positive response and to the possibility of collaborating with you!

--[[User:FradonStar|FradonStar]] ([[User talk:FradonStar|talk]]) 04:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

== Re: Recent change to the source editing interface ==
I've just noticed that the special character buttons below the source editing window were removed, so now if I want to use the right arrow (→) in an edit summary (or [[§]] before a piped section link), I have to open the ''Special characters'' menu and look for it.

I guess they were removed because they seemed redundant (given the aforementioned drop-down menu) and no one could agree on which characters should be included among them, although I've never noticed (nor do I recall) any characters being added or removed from that part of the editing interface throughout all the time that feature has been there. – [[User:MrPersonHumanGuy|MrPersonHumanGuy]] ([[User talk:MrPersonHumanGuy|talk]]) 13:12, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
: Which [[mw:Editor|editor]] are you using? I'm still seeing them using the "2010 wikitext editor", in the Monobook, Vector, and Vector 2022 skins. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 14:51, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
::I use the legacy Vector skin. By "source editing", I'm referring to the interface that is seen when you click ''edit source''. – [[User:MrPersonHumanGuy|MrPersonHumanGuy]] ([[User talk:MrPersonHumanGuy|talk]]) 00:21, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
:::<small>'''Update''':</small> The set of things I was talking about are apparently back. <small>(or it was never removed to begin with and I came here over nothing)</small> Here's a visual representation of what I thought was gone earlier today:
{{fmbox|image=none|text={{button|Insert {{space|15}} '''{{font|color=#444|v}}'''}} {{space|2}} {{button|{{dummy link|–}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|—}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|°}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|′}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|″}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|≈}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|≠}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|≤}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|≥}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|±}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|−}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|×}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|÷}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|←}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|→}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|·}}}} {{button|{{dummy link|§}}}} {{space|2}} '''Sign your posts on talk pages:''' {{button|{{dummy link|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}}}} {{space|2}} '''Cite your sources:''' {{button|{{dummy link|<nowiki><ref></ref></nowiki>}}}}}}
:::I could've sworn that this bar was absent earlier today, but I'm nonetheless glad that it has still been here all along. – [[User:MrPersonHumanGuy|MrPersonHumanGuy]] ([[User talk:MrPersonHumanGuy|talk]]) 00:49, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::::That's called "CharInsert".  
::::If it disappears again, try editing (while still logged in) in [[mw:safemode]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::Fortunately, the problem turned out to be short-lived. I hadn't noticed this issue before, and I don't think I'll experience it again within the foreseeable future. – [[User:MrPersonHumanGuy|MrPersonHumanGuy]] ([[User talk:MrPersonHumanGuy|talk]]) 15:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

== Should MediaWiki warn if a draft exists with the same article title? open discussion ==

12 years ago similar discussions took place [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_namespace Here] and [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T75132 Here] I witness some editors faced the same issues first I ignored it until I myself experience it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thilio#c-Vanderwaalforces-20251226164700-Cut-and-paste_creation? Here] then I was like why not shere the proposal here first before move it to [[Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)| VPT]] or [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)|VPP]] or [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)|VPIL]]....

The propo example like,
When someone creates a new article in mainspace and a draft with the same title exists in the Draft namespace, MediaWiki could display a non blocking informational notice, like:

::''A draft with this title already exists in Draft namespace, If it covers the same subject, you may wish to improve or submit that draft. If it is a different subject with the same name, you may continue creating this article''.

Key points of this proposal actually (a) It is informational only it does not prevent article creation or reserve titles. (b) It helps editors especially new ones discover existing drafts. (c) It reduces the chance of creating duplicate articles unknowingly. (d) It allows editors to proceed normally if the draft is unrelated.

:This would be similar in purpose to edit notices or search suggestions but focused on improving collaboration between Draft and mainspace content AND also this would not prevent article creation, reserve titles or require any action. It would simply inform the editor that a draft exists and suggest checking it out and if that metaphorical editor created the article Knowingly that draft already exist in the draft namespace that's where an administrators should swap in. 

: ''Any thoughts''?
:''Open discussion''

regards [[User:Thilio|<span style="color:#0F08D1; font-weight:bold;"> CONFUSED SPIRIT</span>]]<span style="font-size:60%; color:#0000FF; position:relative; top:0px; margin-left:4px;">[[User talk:Thilio|(Thilio).Talk]]</span> 15:24, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
: It already does do this. See {{tl|draft at}} [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Pppery|Pppery]] I mean a MediaWiki warning not a template.... For example when an editor is using the VisualEditor or source editor and clicks Publish changes before the article is published to mainspace a non blocking warning could appear. [[User:Thilio|<span style="color:#0F08D1; font-weight:bold;"> CONFUSED SPIRIT</span>]]<span style="font-size:60%; color:#0000FF; position:relative; top:0px; margin-left:4px;">[[User talk:Thilio|(Thilio).Talk]]</span> 15:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
: {{ec}} This was implemented back in 2016 via the editnotice system, in [[Special:Diff/709130947]]. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 15:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Anomie|Anomie]]That does work but not in a way that clearly shows the message or gives the editor proper options. Ideally if the titles are the same but the content is different the editor should be able to proceed and publish the article. if the titles and content are the same the editor should work on the existing draft instead of creating a duplicate. [[User:Thilio|<span style="color:#0F08D1; font-weight:bold;"> CONFUSED SPIRIT</span>]]<span style="font-size:60%; color:#0000FF; position:relative; top:0px; margin-left:4px;">[[User talk:Thilio|(Thilio).Talk]]</span> 16:06, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
:::This message is in large type, with bright green icon, in pink warning box at the top of the page. How much clearer do you want it to be?  Blinking text?  Rainbow-colored letters? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] Lol, I missed that but per @[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]]'s explanation AND after experimenting with some drafts I got clean results. {{tq|Rainbow-colored letters}} lol..., I was thinking of pinging you here when I posted the thread THO. Thank you [[User:Thilio|<span style="color:#0F08D1; font-weight:bold;"> CONFUSED SPIRIT</span>]]<span style="font-size:60%; color:#0000FF; position:relative; top:0px; margin-left:4px;">[[User talk:Thilio|(Thilio).Talk]]</span> 05:24, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::I still think a nice eye-catching gradient span could be slapped on that:  {{Linear-gradient text|#ee5050|#f48fb1|#7e57c2|#2196f3|#26c6da|#43a047|#f9a825|#ff5722|text='''There is a draft of this article at}} [[Draft:Example]]'''.  <code>;-)</code> [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:25, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] or some brief pop-up screen warning say something like {{tq|"There is a draft of this article at Draft:Example"}} (When click Publish changes) with Yes and No options, some editors have eyes issues some are using eyeglasses but still can't see clearly. Tho [[User:Thilio|<span style="color:#0F08D1; font-weight:bold;"> CONFUSED SPIRIT</span>]]<span style="font-size:60%; color:#0000FF; position:relative; top:0px; margin-left:4px;">[[User talk:Thilio|(Thilio).Talk]]</span> 06:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::A pop-up might be particularly appropriate for mobile editing, because the screen size is so small. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::::[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] I agree but making it work for both large and small screens is not impossible.... A pop-up would not appear in a different browser tab or layout it would appear in the same layout and the same browser window, like a GUI box saying "A draft of this page exists in the Draft namespace" with Yes and No options If the editor clicks Yes the article would be published if the editor clicks No the article would not be published and would remain in the Visual Editor. [[User:Thilio|<span style="color:#0F08D1; font-weight:bold;"> CONFUSED SPIRIT</span>]]<span style="font-size:60%; color:#0000FF; position:relative; top:0px; margin-left:4px;">[[User talk:Thilio|(Thilio).Talk]]</span> 07:10, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
:I'm confused.  What does your proposal do that the current system that both Pppery and Anomie pointed you at does not (besides less terse wording)?  If you click on, say, [[A-F-R-O]], it'll already show the big green-bordered men-at-work symbol and "There is a draft of this article at [[Draft:A-F-R-O]]." in very large text - and better, it does this ''before'' you write a new article and click publish. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 02:52, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] you made this much easier to understand I can see it clearly now. Thank you.
:: @[[User:Pppery|Pppery]] and @[[User:Anomie|Anomie]] thank you both as well. [[User:Thilio|<span style="color:#0F08D1; font-weight:bold;"> CONFUSED SPIRIT</span>]]<span style="font-size:60%; color:#0000FF; position:relative; top:0px; margin-left:4px;">[[User talk:Thilio|(Thilio).Talk]]</span> 05:16, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

== Misunderstanding about policy regarding primary sources ==

I'm seeing a lot of misunderstanding about when it is appropriate to use primary sources. Some editors seem to be advocating in multiple places to avoid using them in all situations based only on their nature as primary sources. I don't think this is not in line with Wikipedia policy [[WP:PSTS]] or the explanatory essay on that policy [[Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources]] or [[Wikipedia:Party and person]]. I think that in some cases, primary sources are superior to secondary in every way. In data science for example, we have a custody chain for data, and every time that data changes hands we risk introducing deliberate or accidental errors. When it comes to simple statements of fact, like demographics, borders between sovereign states, airline routes, or road names, using a primary source is going to be better then a secondary source that is referencing that primary. For example, citing the U.S. population using the [[United States Census Bureau]] vs a secondary source that cites the [[United States Census Bureau]] for the U.S. population. The use of a secondary source in this case only risks introducing the errors made to the original dataset made by the secondary source; the secondary source is inferior and less reliable. It really is starting to look to me like the [https://tv-memes.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/ed02a72e-2e3d-42da-a5c4-405c1b6451f1 ""You miss all the shots you don't take -Wayne Gretzky" -Michael Scott"] meme. Actual analysis of primary sources is a potential problem, however even in this situation, creating a bar chart (or map) with a dataset and including it in an article could be seen as a form of analysis, and we generally are okay with that. Original research policy seems to only be applied to text analysis, which is odd to me but another issue entirely. When these discussions come up, in cases where we are discussing citations of simple statements of fact, I think we can save a lot of time by pointing people towards the actual text of the policy, and the explanatory essays. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 18:49, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
: Personally I think [[WP:PSTS]] should be demoted to an essay, and policies and guidelines should generally be rewritten to specify what they actually need (e.g. independent and/or reliable and/or "contains analysis") instead of saying "secondary sources" and letting people argue over all of the ambiguities that go into defining that term in different fields. [[WP:OR]] itself, for example, doesn't really need to care whether a source is "primary" or "secondary", as regardless we're supposed to use only what the source contains without adding our own analysis or synthesis; a source being "secondary" is just a heuristic for "probably contains analysis we need". But lots of editors seem to disagree with that idea. "[[Wikipedia:Primary does not mean bad|Primary is bad]]" seems fairly ingrained as a catch-all argument against anything someone doesn't like. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 19:00, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
::Writing policy and guidelines for each possible scenario that may emerge would be difficult to impossible, and also would cause instruction [[WP:CREEP]] to grow exponentially. A clarification on the topic might be necessary to avoid confusion, but I think existing policy/essay are adequate, just being largely ignored. I do agree the emphasis needs to be on if a source is "reliable," not necessarily if it is primary or secondary. If a source is reliable for a statement of fact, it really doesn't matter. I believe that some editors have a misguided or misinformed belief that "Primary is bad" and that ridged interpretation is getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 21:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)
:Primary sources are fine to verify basic statements of fact, and I don't think many will contest that. They should definitely not be used to confirm whether something meets the requirements of [[WP:DUE]] and [[WP:BALASP]]. If a fact can only be cited to a primary source, there's a very good chance the fact doesn't belong in an article unless it's something incredibly simple and fundamental like a date of birth or a population count. When someone is contesting the inclusion of a primary source, the issue they're contesting is usually going to be this weight problem. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#487d30">Thebiguglyalien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#714e2a">talk</span>]]) [[Special:Contributions/Thebiguglyalien|🛸]] 02:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::When I see an editor rejecting all primary sources, I usually find that the editor doesn't actually know what a secondary source is (e.g., thinks it's a fancy term for [[Wikipedia:Independent sources]]) or has a goal and is throwing any [[WP:UPPERCASE]] at it that they think will stick (e.g., deletionists, though note that the opposite also happens:  some inclusionists have never met an independent primary source).
::@[[User:GeogSage|GeogSage]], my favorite example of a primary source is for a direct quotation.  The original source of any quotable line never misquotes itself.
::There's a semi-related discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:Notability#Because]] (including a tangent on whether the GNG does/should require 'secondary sources, even though it doesn't actually say that in the text of the rule).  
::Also, a couple of years ago, I tried to get [[WP:PSTS]] split out of [[WP:NOR]].  I still think that would be a good idea. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:00, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Thebiguglyalien|Thebiguglyalien]] I have seen multiple discussions that contest the use of primary sources for basic statements of fact, most recently this includs using U.S. government maps for road names and airlines for information about their routes.  
::@[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] that notability discussion is interesting, especially because different topics have different criteria for notability. For example, [[WP:NACADEMIC]] lists 8 criteria that makes an academic notable. These criteria must appear in "reliable sources," and it doesn't state that to be verifiable this these sources have to be secondary. For example, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society," could be verified by using the academic institution or major academic society website or publications. [[User:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">GeogSage</span>]] <sup> ([[User talk:GeogSage|<span style="font-family:Blackadder ITC; color:DimGray">⚔Chat?⚔</span>]]) </sup> 04:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Are they challenging whether these sources confirm the information, or whether the information should be in the article? [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#487d30">Thebiguglyalien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#714e2a">talk</span>]]) [[Special:Contributions/Thebiguglyalien|🛸]] 05:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::::This isn't about whether it's verifiable or due.  It's about whether the BLP qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article.  NACADEMIC doesn't normally require either secondary sources or independent sources.  The subject's self-published CV or a press release from their employer is good enough.  An [[H-index]] calculation is also sufficient. 
::::I tried [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=827335450 in 2018] to get a single criteria – "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of [[higher education]], affecting a substantial number of academic institutions" – to require an independent source, and it was rejected.  "Press release:  Big University announced today that our dear Prof. Alice Expert of the Department of Expertise is a notable professor who had a really big effect on academia" is sufficient for this purpose, as is a Wikipedia editor's judgement.  When I first encountered this rule, many years ago, I was told that its most common form could be reduced to "wrote a textbook that is used at their own university plus one other".  To be fair to the editors who deal with this specialized area, they are pretty consistent and even-handed with it, but it's ''very'' different from the GNG approach.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
:At a fundamental level, we are supposed to summarize what sources discuss about a topic. By necessity, that means we need to prefer secondary sources to show how the topic is treated by sources that should not be connected with the original primary sources. That doesn't mean primary sources can't be used but they should be the mortar to help connect missing useful data found in secondary sources, but they should not serve to be the bricks themselves. I know that when we start relying too much on primary sources, editors often begin to inadvertently drop in original research and the like in writing those primary sources. 
:That said, when we have primary sources that provide direct data that requires no special interpretation, including that or making graphs from that should not be an issue, as long as we can demonstrate that information is appropriate (in fact, since data cannot be copyrighted, but the resulting graphs can, it is nearly always better to recreate graphs using primary source data to avoid the copyright problem). [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::If we need sources that {{xt|show how the topic is treated by sources that should not be connected with the original}}, then we need [[WP:INDY]] sources, because [[Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent]].
::* This is a '''secondary''' source:  Alice runs a meta-analysis on her own previously published research papers.
::* This is an '''independent''' source:  Bob shares an anecdote about that time he saw Alice presenting a paper at a widgets conference.
::If we need sources that show how a topic is treated by sources that aren't connected, we need [[Wikipedia:Independent sources]]. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:41, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
:The purpose of sources are to support verification, so they need to be of a quality that matches whatever is claimed. That could mean a primary source, a secondary, an independent source, but say that one of those is best in all cases is deeply misguided.
:The purpose of editing is to create an encyclopedia, that means that primary sources should be used when necessary, but also not creating essays based on primary sources alone. Ultimately what we call different types of sources doesn't matter as long as the result isn't original research. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 19:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

== What's wrong with being Jewish? ==
{{atop|As this clearly concerns a topic subject to [[WP:ARBECR|extended-confirmed restriction]], this is an inappropriate venue. Qualified editors may discuss this at [[Talk:Zak Smith]]. – [[User talk:Bradv|<span style="color:#333">'''brad''v'''''</span>]] 17:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)}}
Active discussion about stating Jewishness in a BLP is happening off-wiki, so I’m bringing it here.

The issue centers on whether it is appropriate to mention that the subject of an article is Jewish as a statement of fact '''when the subject has repeatedly, publicly, proudly, and unambiguously discussed being Jewish in their own social media''', and '''when their body of work explicitly engages with their Jewish heritage'''.

Arguments against including this information hold that describing someone as Jewish is inherently controversial in a BLP, and that repeated self-identification in self-published sources is insufficient. Instead, they argue that such information must be documented in reliable secondary sources to be included.

Thoughts? [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2025-43531-92|&#126;2025-43531-92]] ([[User talk:&#126;2025-43531-92|talk]]) 03:50, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::<small>(The above IP has been blocked for socking) [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 06:37, 29 December 2025 (UTC)</small>
:There does need to be a distinction between Jewish as a faith/religion ([[Judaism]]), and Jewish as an ethnicity ([[Jews]]) (which may include people that do not follow the Jewish religion). If the person on their socials is not 100% clear which version they are speaking of, we can't make the incorrect leap of logic to which one they meant, hence the need for a secondary source to make that clear. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 04:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::I don't think any "leap of logic" is necessary; just say they identify as Jewish and don't try to say whether that's as an ethnicity or a religion or both.   [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:48, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
:That debate is not helpful for Wikipedia. What counts here is that experience shows that many [[WP:SPA|SPAs]] tag every person as Jewish where that tag is plausibly defensible. Whether they are doing it to promote or denigrate Jewishness is not relevant. All that matters is that it is disruptive. If multiple [[WP:SECONDARY|reliable secondary sources]] have commented on someone being Jewish, it will probably be appropriate to note that in an article about the person. However, mass tagging people because ''anyone can edit'' is not helpful. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 04:56, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::Why would we need multiple sources containing analysis, interpretation, evaluation, contextualization, or comparison ("secondary source") of their identity?  We don't normally need a source to analyze or evaluate someone's identity, and even when that identity has been extensively challenged, we have often been generous towards that self-identification until the claim couldn't be sustained any longer (e.g., "'''Ward Churchill''' (born [[1948]]) is an activist of mixed [[Native American]] heritage"[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ward_Churchill&oldid=9995109]).
::Is there any other class of identity that we do this for, or is this special rules for people with a Jewish identity?  I think it would be extremely offensive if editors suggested that a similar statement by a trans person required someone else to evaluate their statement that they're trans.  I don't think it would be okay to accept self-identification for all identities except Jewishness; all identities should be treated alike. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 07:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
:::The cases I've seen have been where a passer-by tags someone because of their mother or their school or whatever. Per [[WP:DUE]], tagging needs justification. If a person makes a statement about their identity, that can be included in an article. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 08:08, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
:It's not that it's "inherently controversial" so much as we just try to avoid writing articles based on people's own works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its purpose is to summarize what's been written by independent third-party sources. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#487d30">Thebiguglyalien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#714e2a">talk</span>]]) [[Special:Contributions/Thebiguglyalien|🛸]] 05:30, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
:For the interested, discussion also occuring on-WP, [[Talk:Zak_Smith/Archive_2#Edit_request_to_add_that_he's_Jewish_27_December_2025]] and [[Talk:Zak_Smith#EC_discussion]]. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 22:40, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::As anyone who has seen the 'off-wiki' discussion involved can confirm, this is but one example of a tedious refusal to take note of basic Wikipedia policies by an individual who seems to think that the subject of a biography should be permitted to determine content, accompanied by a whole lot of mind-reading (statements regarding what the subject wants, unaccompanied by any evidence to back it up, coming from someone who says they are not the individual concerned), and absurd accusations that there is some sort of conspiracy involved against the subject because Wikipedia expects secondary sources before including material promoting books etc. The supposedly-'active' off-Wiki thread was shut down as the waste of time it clearly was, and I suggest the same is done here. If we need a discussion regarding the extent to which faith and/or ethnicity should be covered in biographies, this is a particularly poor example to base it around. [[User:AndyTheGrump|AndyTheGrump]] ([[User talk:AndyTheGrump|talk]]) 23:03, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
:::Agreed, having reviewed this, this discussion is not productive. It's not clear that there is sourcing to support OP's assertion. And it would appear OP is blocked. In the future, if anyone has any legitimate concerns about EITHER so-called Jew-tagging, which I would say is trying to tag only peripherally or minimally sourced individuals as Jewish perhaps against their preference or in a way that isn't pertinent to their biography, OR, omitting the Jewish heritage, ethnicity, religion, or cultural affiliation from someone who should have it mentioned due to it being well-sourced and relevant per [[MOS:ETHNICITY]] and the best practices of BLP (or in the case of a dead person, best encyclopedic practices in general), a good place to bring it up is the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history|WikiProject Jewish history]] or the [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism|WikiProject Judaism]].  And as a plug, the projects have a big list of open tasks of new articles to create. I also recently updated the [[Wikipedia:Jewish Encyclopedia topics|Jewish Encyclopedia topics]] table at 68.1% completion. Since it dates to 2005, we're filling in about 7% a year, so we could finish within 4 years! '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 23:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)
::::I see a few issues here. 
::::First, we do allow the subject of a BLP to ask for an edit request, correct? So if you think the subject is asking (which maybe they are maybe they aren't), what exactly is the reason we can't add that they're Jewish per their own request? I looked at the talk page and the archived edit request did had several links to social media posts where they self-declared it. For the record, if they're the ones asking, they can easily state and make the request. 
::::Second, if you think the subject of the BLP is making all of the edit request (I don't think it is), then presumably you don't think they are notable enough to have a fan base, or not one that would want current information updated to their bio. If that's the case, why not propose a request for deletion? 
::::If there is a chance, however, that the subject does in fact have fans, why would it be unreasonable to expect that their fans might ask for edit requests? I looked at the proposed edits and they all seem pretty standard, except the ones which mention a few sources that discuss the results of a recent court case, which arguably is controversial. 
::::If however, the main reason (as is suggested above) the edit requests aren't being made or considered is because of who is imagined to be making the requests rather than judging the requests on their own merits, then that raises concerns not about who is making the requests but about the neutrality of editors engaged with a BLP. 
::::The edit requests are below: 
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1329874368
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1329874433
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1329874511
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zak_Smith&diff=prev&oldid=1329874640 [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2025-43521-26|&#126;2025-43521-26]] ([[User talk:&#126;2025-43521-26|talk]]) 03:06, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
::::::If these were normal circumstances, these might be reasonable arguments. The Zak Smith article has been proven to have been written & maintained by Zak and dozens of dedicated sock- or meat-puppets over twenty years. This is merely the latest episode. The OP for ''this thread'' has been blocked by a neutral admin for socking, attempting to carry their fight away from the Zak Smith talk page. This is the end result of sustained socking. The community's solution is to prevent IPs and new editors from contributing. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 06:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I would imagine that the page would read as a glowing advertorial if that were the case. It most definately does not. Wikipedians don't pick and choose when to apply policy just because they don't '''like''' who we imagine is posting or requesting them. 
:::::::By refering to the conflict as a "fight" being taken away from the article page, you are clearly creating an us vs. them scenario, where your side is the "correct" side? It is correct to not add that he's Jewish?
:::::::Your focus almost entirely is on the actions of others instead of the merits of the edit request and deflects from the very real problem here specifically that there seems to be no attempt to engage with the larger context of the situation. For example, no mention is made of whether the editors who raised concerns have had their voices fairly heard or if the article has been neutrally maintained by all involved parties. By focusing solely on one side’s faults without acknowledging the complexity of the situation, you are presenting a very one-sided, unbalanced argument that totally violates Wikipedia's neutrality standards.
:::::::The final line about "preventing IPs and new editors from contributing" is a pretty loaded statement where  you are suggesting the action of blocking IPs and new editors is completely justified, without considering the impact it has on innocent newcomers who could offer valuable (and neutral) perspectives. The solution presented here is framed as a direct result of "sustained socking," but there is no mention of whether the blocking policy itself could be a disproportionate response and the impact it has on the article (not allowing Jewishness, not allowing neutral edits, not allowing the update of a recent court outcome).
:::::::Wikipedia articles, and the discussions surrounding them, should not be reduced to personal battles or entrenched positions. Neutrality requires the acknowledgment that both sides of a dispute may have valid points, and you have completely disregarded that principle. [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2025-43716-70|&#126;2025-43716-70]] ([[User talk:&#126;2025-43716-70|talk]]) 16:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
:::::I don't think I said it must be the subject or their fans or their enemies requesting it, it really does not matter who requests it, just like you wish, it is purely based on the merit of the request. If the subject themself is trying to get themself identified as Jewish on Wikipedia, they need to do more than talk about it on Twitter. That alone doesn't make it a weighty part of the bio. Similarly, if their fans want to see this in the bio, all they can do is hope that a reliable reporter or magazine or something writes a piece about the artist's relevance to the Jewish community or how their Jewishness has informed their work and experiences. A few Tweets about how he feels Jewish do not establish the basis of this being relevant to list. And we have no way of knowing if the artist wants that. I don't think, even if the artist emailed OTRS or whatever they call the ticket line thing now, saying "Please add that my Bar Mitzvah was in 1996" to the article, that they would help you do that even if you posted 10 tweets a day with your awesome Bar Mitzvah theme photos. '''[[User:AndreJustAndre|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:AndreJustAndre|🚐]]</span> 03:24, 29 December 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}

== Are temp accounts shared across different language Wikipedias? ==

Are temp accounts shared across different language Wikipedias? I got an odd alert from Italian Wikipedia, for which I've never contributed, nor have I read recently, with a Welcome Message there. -- [[Special:Contributions/&#126;2025-41582-72|&#126;2025-41582-72]] ([[User talk:&#126;2025-41582-72|talk]]) 00:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, but usually you have to visit a page there first. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:44, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
:See [[Special:CentralAuth/~2025-41582-72]]. I guess the various wikis have their own 'attachment' triggers. [[User:Sean.hoyland|Sean.hoyland]] ([[User talk:Sean.hoyland|talk]]) 08:29, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:26 for '26]] starts in less than 24 hours! ==

[[Wikipedia:26 for '26]] is a contest for editors to create or substantially improve 26 new articles, one every two weeks, corresponding to the 26 letters of the alphabet, throughout 2026. Editors can sign up at any time, but to score maximum points your first article of the contest has to be done in the first two weeks of the year. Cheers! [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 04:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

== paywalled sources ==
Hello. [[User:KiranBOT/AMP]] is approved to update [[Accelerated Mobile Pages]] (AMP) URLs to their canonical/non-AMP versions. While working on it, I came across a few scenarios. I was wondering what should be done, so I am requesting input here.<br />
There are a few possible scenarios while updating the url.
# AMP url is accessible freely, but the CAN url is behind paywall, or free login .
# Both the URLs are behind paywall, or free login.
# AMP url now redirects to login/subscription page.
following is an example pair. In that example, the AMP url automatically redirects to the login page. 
* AMP: <code>https://www.italiaoggi.it/amp/archivio/accordo-fra-ellesse-e-pentland-218861</code>
* CAN: <code>https://www.italiaoggi.it/login?sezione=carta&returnUrl=news/accordo-fra-ellesse-e-pentland-qou36hrv</code>
In short, my question is, what should the bot do?
# Ignore any URL (either AMP, or can) which requires a login/subscription (make no changes at all).
# Replace the login/subscription AMP url to either free or login/subscription AMP url (this is low in occurrence, almost none).
# Do not replace the URL if AMP is free, and CAN is login/subscription (this is low in occurrence, almost none).
# something else. 
—usernamekiran [[User talk:usernamekiran|(talk)]] 15:31, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

:I’m not familiar with the problem but another idea is to have some results page with an anchor, some text about the paywall and the original link.  [[User:Dw31415|<span style="background-color: snow; font-family: 'Linux Libertine', 'Georgia', 'Times', 'Source Serif Pro', serif">Dw31415</span>]] ([[User talk:Dw31415#top|talk]]) 18:22, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

== Happy Public Domain Day 2026 ==

Duke U has assembled a list of major works that will fall into the PD as of tomorrow in the US, which is great for us. [https://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/publicdomainday/2026/ list here] [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 21:05, 31 December 2025 (UTC)