Wikipedia:Village pump (policy): Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Date redirects to portals?: Reply |
|||
| (37 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
Line 59:
*'''Yes''' per J947, especially given that the current event portals function like an encyclopedic list for the given date. --[[User:Tavix| <span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">'''T'''avix</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Tavix|<span style="color:#000080; font-family:georgia">talk</span>]])</sup> 16:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Yes''', speaking as a recognized ''portalista'', portals have not yet been excised from the pedia. In this case, User:J947 makes the essential point. I'm not convinced that even incomplete, out-of-date portals are any less encyclopedic than the 2 million or so Wikipedia articles nobody bothered to edit last year. [[User:BusterD|BusterD]] ([[User talk:BusterD|talk]]) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
*Portals are not part of the encylopedia as we understand encyclopedias: sources of information. They serve as navigation within an encylopedia. We would not see a Portal as the final delivery of information, any more than we would see a contents page, index, blurb, or advert as the final information page. These are all ancillary. People mostly land on a Wikipedia article page without a Portal. I have used Wikipedia for nearly twenty years without ever needing a Portal to direct me to where I want to go, and I would assume this is true for the majority of people. Redirects are designed as a signpost, and we frown upon a signpost simply pointing to another signpost. People would generally only arrive at a Portal if directed there from a link that should more helpfully point to the appropriate article. The Belgium Portal is mentioned above as a good Portal. If we go to the Belgium article and scroll down, there is a link to the Belgium Portal. But the Portal mainly provides us with a digest of the Belgium article, including a link back to the Belgium article, which itself contains more links to Belgium related articles than the Belgium Portal. Huh? Seriously? Why are we taking readers away from a sublime source, rich with information and links, to an inferior source? There is nothing on the Belgium Portal that is not available on the Belgium article page - including links to news. But there is much on the Belgian article page that is not on the Belgium Portal page. My suggestion is that ALL links to portals such as the Belgium Portal should instead go to the main article page. Why are we redirecting people to a redirect page when we can send them to the main article on the topic? Portals are a waste of our time and resources, and are a misdirect for readers. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 22:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] Are you also specifically opposed to redirecting to the current events portal, which is more "encyclopedic" than "navigational"? [[User talk:Cremastra|''Cremastra'']] ‹ [[User:Cremastra|u]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]] › 22:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*::I'm not exactly comfortable with [[2006#August]] as a target as that itself is a signpost, but I see little value in us having two such signposts - that simply duplicates and confuses things. Either we have [[2006#August]] or we have [[Portal:Current events/2006 August 16]], and I'd much prefer we simply get rid of Portals, so I would obviously opt for [[2006#August]]. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 23:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::The CE portal has more information for the reader, so I prefer it (see my arguments at [[WP:RDATE]].) [[User talk:Cremastra|''Cremastra'']] ‹ [[User:Cremastra|u]] — [[Special:Contribs/Cremastra|c]] › 23:12, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] Your argument breaks down as soon as you realise that disambiguation pages and set indexes exist and that redirects to those pages are extremely common and uncontroversial. We also redirect people to outlines, broad concept articles and overviews. What is the "main article page" for a date? In all but a few exceptional cases there isn't a single article but multiple, and so just as if they had searched [[Mercury]], [[Bitter ash]] or [[Stuffed flatbread]] we present them with a menu of content that is relevant to their search term and let them choose what it is they want to read about. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*::See my answer above. I don't see the point in duplicating signposts. We have [[Belgium]], so we don't need [[Portal:Belgium]]; and we have [[2006#August]] so we don't need [[Portal:Current events/2006 August 16]]. Signposts are not part of the encyclopedia, but they are navigational aids which lead us to further information. However, we have built into every article multiple signposts to further information. We don't need to have duplicate signposts outside of mainspace to which people are directed away from mainspace to consult. It is a waste of our time and resources, and a misdirection for readers. Internal links are an elegant way of signposting to further information. Navigational templates are a little clunky, but are useful. Portals take readers away from the encyclopedia, and are a pointless timesink for both editors and readers. [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 23:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
*:::Portals are just as much part of the encyclopaedia as set indexes and navigational templates. [[Portal:Belgium]] and [[Belgium]] fulfil very different roles in the encyclopaedia, neither is a duplicate of the other. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 23:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
== Issues with antiquated guideline for [[WP:NBAND]] that essentially cause run of the mill non-notable items to be kept ==
Line 236 ⟶ 243:
::::::::Maybe another way of getting this data would be better, I'll have to look at it on some other occasion that I have more time.
::::::::[[User:Milo8505|Milo8505]] <sub>[[User_talk:Milo8505|(talk)]]</sub> 11:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I looked at the first 10 articles in [[:Category:Core biography articles]], and 100% had infoboxes. However, those ten articles used seven different infoboxes:
:::::::::* [[Template:Infobox person]] (is this the one you looked at?)
:::::::::* [[Template:Infobox royalty]]
:::::::::* [[Template:Infobox writer]]
:::::::::* [[Template:Infobox saint]]
:::::::::* [[Template:Infobox scientist]]
:::::::::* [[Template:Infobox philosopher]]
:::::::::* [[Template:Infobox writer]]
:::::::::[[:Category:People and person infobox templates]] lists dozens. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Yes! Yes!
::::::::::That's my point. Most{{cn}} good biographies have an infobox - except those of classical composers.
::::::::::I will look at the category you mentioned and try to count from there.
::::::::::Thank you very much! [[User:Milo8505|Milo8505]] <sub>[[User_talk:Milo8505|(talk)]]</sub> 16:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
== How do I contest a deleted article? ==
Line 296 ⟶ 316:
::::Also, the sheer optics of it being mostly (from what i've seen) established admins calling this process toxic are terrible. Anyone who doesn't know anything about this process will see this as some kind of thin blue line mentality in the admin corps - and might conclude that it is time to desysop the majority of old admins to dissolve the clique.
::::I wouldn't be surprised if we see a bunch of recall petitions for the most vocal critics of this process. [[User:Magischzwei|Magisch]] <sup>[[User talk:Magischzwei|talk to me]]</sup> 11:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I have no horse in this race, except that I regret not seeing the RFA earlier so I could have voted Support, sorry about that.
:::::But if your argument is optics, then having a bunch of recall petitions for the people who most vocally expressed a valid opinion on an evolving policy is ''absolutely awful'' optics. At best. [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 01:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
::I took the stats from the first RRfA to test this theory:
Line 326 ⟶ 348:
:::There's a lot of numbers that could be analyzed, such as the history of those admins who vote at RfA (whether they often vote support or don't vote at all), but it's hard to draw meaningful conclusions from this small of a dataset. [[User:Hey man im josh|Hey man im josh]] ([[User talk:Hey man im josh|talk]]) 19:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::On paper, I get that. The thing is, I don't know whether you saw [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Graham87_2#c-Levivich-20241117223500-Oppose Levivich's comment] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Graham87_2#c-Bradv-20241120021000-Oppose bradv's comment], but you'd be hard-pressed to find a less appropriate time to test the "chance to grow" theory than the absolutely deplorable behavior that we saw from Graham for many years with far too many chances to improve. If it were down to me, this should have been a block in 2023 rather than a desysop in 2024. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 19:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm late to the discussion, but I think it's also worth pointing that only 7 of the 25 users who signed Graham87's petition and 2 of the 25 on Fastily's were admins. ~~ [[User:Jessintime|Jessintime]] ([[User talk:Jessintime|talk]]) 13:16, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:: I would add that there is a potential wrinkle in this analysis. I'm an extended-confirmed user here (and thus would likely be counted as a non-admin), but I am a sysop on Commons so I would have my own perspective on the matter. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|talk]]) 21:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:Well, I'm not an admin and I started this thread. I'm all for having an admin recall process by the community in place. I'm also also for a process for course correction by the community in areas where and admin has drifted off course but where the problem is fixable. Administrative Action Review has the potential to become this but that has been stymied by various things. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
Line 349 ⟶ 373:
:::::::Here's the Quarry query editcount/registration date for [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/88070 Supports], [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/88072 Neutrals], [https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/88073 Opposes].
:::::::I think about 6 editors were missed by the tool you linked, but it should not change overall patterns much so we can just use this as is. [[User:Soni|Soni]] ([[User talk:Soni|talk]]) 07:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Prepare to not be surprised. Supporters/Opposers:
::::::::*Median registration date 2008/2014 <-- Behold, Wikipedia's generational shift
::::::::*Average registration date: 2011/2014
::::::::*Median edit count: 40,293/17,363
::::::::*Average edit count: 76,125/43,683
::::::::Thanks for doing the quarry. Teamwork makes the dream work! [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 05:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::At a quick glance, it seemed like editors with more edits were more likely to support while editors with fewer edits (with one exception) were more likely to oppose. - [[User:Enos733|Enos733]] ([[User talk:Enos733|talk]]) 07:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Given a single admin action may involve multiple edits, it's not so surprising the supporters' list possibly reflects a group with higher edit counts. Personally, I'd be more inclined to draw conclusions from length of registration rather than edit count. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 09:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::my very, very rapid count - supports 35/117 (30%) less than 10 years old, opposes 67/141 (48%) less than 10 years old. In absolute numbers, 10+ year accounts were 82 supports, 74 opposes - actually quite even. What was crucial was younger accounts. It does confirm my sense of gaps between "older" and "younger" generations in regard to perceptions of tolerable admin behaviour. Regards, [[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 09:50, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
We have had two recalls as of now. The people signing the recall were by and large not trolls, vandals, people blocked by that admin, ... but regular editors in good standing and without a grudge. One of these recalls has been supported by the RRFA afterwards, and the other admin decided not to go for a RRFA. There is ''zero'' evidence that the process is flawed or leads to results not wanted by the community at large. While minor issues need working out (things like "should it be closed immediately the moment it reaches 25 votes or not"), the basic principles and method have so far not produced any reason to fundamentally "fix" the issue. That the process highlights a gap between parts of the community (see e.g. the Graham RRFA) doesn't mean that the process needs fixing. The process only would need fundamental fixing if we would get successful recalls which would then be overwhelmingly reversed at RRFA, showing that the recall was frivolous, malicious, way too easy... Not now though. [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 09:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
: I agree with Fram. There is not any evidence that the recall process is reaching outcomes that are not supported by the Community (I voted Oppose on the Graham RRFA; I don't know how I would have voted on a Fastily RRFA). Small fixes to the process if supported would not be indicative of the process itself being fundamentally flawed. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|talk]]) 21:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:I agree that it just needs fixes.<b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 15:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
I believe that desysoppings for cause should only happen when there is objective evidence of misconduct. My main concern about the recall process is that it may be wielded against administrators who are willing to take actions that are controversial, yet necessary. Examples of actions that have got administrators hounded include (1) closing contentious and politically charged AFD discussions; (2) blocking an "[[WP:UNBLOCKABLE]]" editor who is being disruptive or making personal attacks; (3) stepping up to protect a politically charged article to stop an edit war. None of these actions are administrator misconduct, but in a heated dispute the side that has an admin rule in their disfavor may quickly resort to punishing said administrator by starting a recall petition, and in a dispute involving many editors, getting to 25 may be easy. Even if that petition fails, it is so unpleasant that it may have a chilling effect on admin involvement even when needed. [[User:Sjakkalle|Sjakkalle]] [[User talk:Sjakkalle|<small>(Check!)</small>]] 21:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
: In which case, a RRFA might be overwhelmingly in favor of the administrator and thus vindicate the administrator. I would definitely vote in support of an administrator if those any of those three were the impetus behind a recall. I also trust our editors, and so far, the recall process has worked as intended. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|talk]]) 21:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:ArbCom have to face re-election. Does that have a chilling effect on the arbitrators? [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 21:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:: That's a facile argument. Arbitrators are well aware that they are standing for a fixed term period. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 21:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::It's driving me up the wall that people keep saying that the process has worked as intended. Come back and tell me that, after you can link to an RRfA for Fastily that resulted in whatever result you define as working as intended. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Choosing not to do an RRfA was their own choice, particularly if Fastily thought it wouldn't be successful. It was also their choice to make no attempt whatsoever to defend the reams of evidence presented against them in the recall petition of their negative actions toward the editing community. So, yes, Fastily as well was an example of the process working as intended. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 22:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::: Or perhaps they just thought "well, I've put XX years into this and a load of random people with rationales ranging from reasonable to utterly non-existent have told me I'm not fit to do it, so f*** you". If that's the case, I don't blame them. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 22:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Maybe, maybe not. Probably not though right? Seems kind of silly. [[User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng]] ([[User talk:PackMecEng|talk]]) 22:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::: I suspect that might be my reaction, to be honest. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 22:24, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::He was going to lose if he didn't apologize, and he didn't want to apologize. That simple. As others have said, that was his choice to make, and I respect it. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:28, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Except that he ''did'' apologize, although there were differing views of whether that apology was enough. This oversimplification is what's wrong with the way discussions happen in this process. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:34, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::He woulda had to apologize more, then, including for the stuff that came out during the petition, and any other stuff that may have come out during the RRfA. He woulda had to answer questions about it, make promises, etc., basically go through what Graham went through, and realize that even that (answering questions, making promises) might not be enough (as it wasn't for Graham). It's not at all irrational for someone to choose not go through that. Being an admin isn't worth all that to some (e.g., to me), especially if you might not get it despite your best efforts. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:44, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::"Someone decided that it just isn't worth it" does not equal "the process worked". --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::No, those two things are not the same. If you want to know why I think the process worked, it's because it stopped disruption, did it faster than Arbcom, and I think with less drama (though admittedly the third one is purely subjective and speculative). [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 22:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Um, thanks for sharing? --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 23:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
::::On the petition page, I conducted a careful analysis of the evidence. Nobody refuted what I said there. --[[User:Tryptofish|Tryptofish]] ([[User talk:Tryptofish|talk]]) 22:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
== the REGIME test ==
Line 382 ⟶ 433:
:::However, your polemics here have been consistently superficial and unhelpful. It seems almost self-parody to aphorize "prescriptivism is dead" amid seeking to categorically deprecate sources based on the sole criterion of whether they use a particular word, citing what you feel is the only correct definition of said word in practice. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff"> ‥ </span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 09:03, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::The attraction of the word "regime" to headline writers is often that it is simply shorter than "government" or "administration", rather than anything to do with its connotations. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 09:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Exactly my point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | [[User:berchanhimez|me]] | [[User talk:berchanhimez|talk to me!]] 23:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:What is the rationale for this proposal? Is there a specific source or incident that prompted it? [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|talk]]) 01:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:While I understand the rationale for this proposal, IMO it goes way too far. I would agree that it's important to keep in mind when a source is using biased language and consider using in-text attribution in these cases, but certainly it's not worth a blanket ban.
:Furthermore, it's often the case that when the news media uses negative language about a topic, that's because that negative language is the consensus. For instance, nobody would really question the phrase "the Nazi regime" or even probably "the genocidal Nazi regime" from a reliable source, and for good reason. When everyone agrees on a [[WP:LABEL|contentious label]] that implies that in that specific case the label is not, in fact, contentious. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 01:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
| |||