Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The policy section of the village pump is intended for discussions about already-proposed policies and guidelines, as well as changes to existing ones. Discussions often begin on other pages and are subsequently moved or referenced here to ensure greater visibility and broader participation.

If you wish to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals). Alternatively, for drafting with a more focused group, consider starting the discussion on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject, the Manual of Style, or another relevant project page.
For questions about how to apply existing policies or guidelines, refer to one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
If you want to inquire about what the policy is on a specific topic, visit the Help desk or the Teahouse.
This is not the place to resolve disputes regarding the implementation of policies. For such cases, consult Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For proposals for new or amended speedy deletion criteria, use Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion.

Please see this FAQ page for a list of frequently rejected or ignored proposals. Discussions are automatically archived after 7 days of inactivity.

« Archives, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204

Are political userboxes now allowed in Templatespace?

Back in 2006, political userboxes were userfied per WP:Userbox migration as a result of the Great Userbox War. Since then, it appears that a lot of them have popped up again in the Template namespace. Also, the index page for WP:Userboxes/Politics by country, which had been userfied following MfD in 2009, was moved back to Projectspace in 2020 by a now-indeffed user, apparently without discussion. I was would revert the move, but then 16 years is a long time for consensus to possibly have changed, so I thought I'd ask here first:

Is current consensus in favour of allowing political userboxes in the Template namespace? Where is the line drawn for those that should only be in Userspace?
Is it acceptable that WP:Userboxes/Politics by country was moved back to Projectspace in contravention of the 2009 MfD?

I recently posted this at WT:Userboxes, though it that page doesn't appear to get a lot of traffic, so also asking here. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any content that's "inflammatory or substantially divisive" is not allowed in userboxes, per the guideline at WP:UBCR. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That describes userboxes that are not allowed, period. My question, however, is about userboxes that are only allowed in Userspace and not Templatespace. The relevant guideline is under WP:UBXNS, which is rather vague. The convention was developed way back in 2006 and doesn't appear to have been clearly documented. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to what is sufficiently divisive to be banned. This user has an “anti-UN” user box, in addition to multiple pro-2nd amendment userboxes. They popped up in the anti-AI discussion using a signature saying “Hail Me” and crosses that are similar to the Iron Cross. This was addressed on their talk page; where they disclaim any connection to Nazism, but refuse to remove the crosses. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to see why the ✠ have to be connected to Nazi Germany. I failed to see why multiple pro-2nd amendment and anti-UN statements are regarded as supportive to Nazism. I would again claim that I have no love for Hitler and Nazi Germany. I refuse to remove the ✠ from my signature as I didn't think that it is a symbol of Nazism. If you feel that the ✠ are sufficiently divisive to be banned you can go to WP:ANI for that. Have a good day. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 10:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I do not think the anti-UN and pro-2nd amendment userboxes are supportive of Nazism of themselves. But including them, along with several pro-Trump userboxes makes it clear you support fascist causes. Hope that helps clear things up! 173.177.179.61 (talk) 11:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second this comment. 208.87.236.180 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least the 3rd time I've seen someone bring up the iron crosses. At what point do we get to call a dogwhistle a dog whistle? Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sock-the-guy and IP editor 173... this is the wrong venue for discussion of a specific editor, if you believe action should be taken then make your case, with evidence, at AN or ANI. If you don't believe action should be taken then stop talking about it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I’ll restate my original question then. Is a userbox for being “anti UN” sufficiently divisive to be removed?

For clarification, I have only been browsing these boards for a couple weeks. I saw that this user was asked to adjust their signature, but there was no comment about the userboxes, so I was unsure if they were allowed or not.

I don’t know how to file an ANI unfortunately. That said, I’m not really interested in helping out a community that is pro-Trump, so as a queer Canadian, I guess I’m outta here. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If User:SunDawn wants people to assume that they support fascist causes, then they are quite welcome to keep their signature, as long as they don't complain when people call them out on it. Black Kite (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The swastika predates the Nazis, but if you buy it in your signature you will end up having to explain why all the time. In the same way the iron cross predates WW2 but is now heavily associated with the Nazi's use of it, don't be surprised if people are offended by it's use. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the other option for using the Iron Cross is generally to show allegiance to outlaw biker clubs. But this all seems something of a digression from the key question of the thread. Simonm223 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if this isn’t allowed but I ended up commenting on this thread before & after I registered. So for complete clarity, the IP above (173.177.179.61) is me. ExtantRotations (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Userboxes should be moved out of template space. If you find one, move it.

The unresolved question is whether political Userboxes should be moved out of Wikipedia?

If Wikipedia:UBXNS is vague, fix it. Userboxes don’t belong in template space. Userboxes are Userpage content and are not real templates. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of any guidance to that effect. Presumably you don't mean to include Babel boxes? But what about user group userboxes? WikiProject membership userboxes? Legitimate areas of expertise and/or interest? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) All Userboxes should be moved out of template space. If you find one, move it. is this just your opinion? It's not something I've ever heard before and doesn't seem to match what is written at WP:UBXNS,

If Wikipedia:UBXNS is vague, fix it. this is what they are explicitly seeking to do. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Userbox migration SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a historical page that proposes moving some userboxes to userspace and which explicitly eschews being a policy or guideline, it does not support your statement. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It describes the rationale and the practice, and it still occurs, and is often an MfD result. In my opinion nothing needs fixing, if someone doesn’t like a template space userbox, Userfy it to User:UBX. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is this WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT? --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 19:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's same shit, really. They can be probably deployed as templates, they can be coded, they can be in Template: or User: namespace (not projectspace though, because that IMHO is supposed to be somehow related to Wikipedia's functioning). It's like arguing over whether we want to put our luggage in locker 26 or 38 when they are the same size. The only thing that really matters is the userbox's content.

There is a userbox discussion going on (at MfD) and I see some support for blanket removal of all political userboxes, userspace, templatespace or elsewhere, essentially per WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTSOCIAL and as being generally not conducive to editing.

And I suggest that we consider that option as well.

Also, unwritten conventions like the one described just above me suck. If it is a convention that actually has much influence on outcomes, it ought to be a rule. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit… I’m going to be real for a second. I’ve been hanging around reading things for a bit still cause I was like “well okay… maybe I jumped off the handle… it’s not like anti-LGBT userboxes exist, right? I mean, that would be crazy offensive.”

OH! Oh wait they do and people have to argue politely and civilily as to why it might be considered upsetting to realize the person editing the same niche article as you disrespects you on a fundamental human level. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Userboxes don’t belong in ProjectSpace because that gets read as implying official Wikipedia status. They don’t belong in TemplateSpace because they don’t function as templates, and because template gnomes don’t like them there and are template-deletionists. They do belong in userspace because they are a form of user expression. If they are idiosyncratic, keep them in their creator’s userspace. If they are broadly used, put them under USER:UBX.

Let’s make this decades old practice “the rule”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a clearer definition is needed for "directly collaborative in nature," as currently stated. Logically, it should be fine for a userbox (even in Templatespace) to say "This user is interested in the history of Nazism," but not "This user identifies as a Nazi." The former identifies the user's area of interest in contributing to Wikipedia; the latter is just plain inflammatory (or a bad joke). Requiring such wording may be a way to draw the line. On the other hand, it might be opening a loophole for people to exploit. Anyone got better ideas? --Paul_012 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I would prefer, even if it is a small preference, for project supporting Userboxes to be organised in Projectspace, not Template space. I think many would belong in a WikiProject.

2. I suggest NOT seeking to define a good and proper userbox. This could be constraining on future good ideas. Instead, I suggest that if someone wants to challenge a userbox as not being for the benefit of the project, that they consider migrating it to userspace, to the authors userspace or to User:UBX. If definitions are wanted, define unacceptable Userboxes. This has already begun. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I note the userbox in the MFD linked earlier is already in the author's userspace. But since it touches on an area where we have many people intent on promoting the victimhood of certain groups, it's getting a lot of delete votes based purely on that activism. Perhaps we really do want to ban userboxes that take positions on divisive social and political issues, but that environment (or any where discussion is going to be dominated by people throwing around WP:NONAZIS or its various clones) is not a good place to make a reasoned decision. Anomie ⚔ 12:05, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, I’m having trouble understanding your argument. Is your claim that LGBT people are “promoting victimhood” by voting to delete a userbox that reads “This user does not support the LGBT ideology” and that the delete votes are therefore insincere? They seem to come from genuine users. I don’t think it makes a difference who is placing the votes so long as they arent breaking rules. 173.177.179.61 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're misinterpreting basically everything there. And this isn't the place for a political discussion. Anomie ⚔ 17:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, would you like to explain why you think only the Delete votes are due to activism? 173.177.179.61 (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Anomie ⚔ 17:55, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AGF be damned. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest. I deleted all the userboxes from my user page a while back. This was principally because of two reasons: one - they'd got rather multitudinous and some of them were a snapshot of who I was nearly two decades ago more than now and two - the political userboxes never brought me anything but grief. I'd be supportive of a blanket elimination of political userboxes from Wikipedia full-stop. Frankly it would probably improve general adherence to WP:AGF even if it meant that we would lose the opportunity to occasionally have a bigot out themselves before they disrupt the encyclopedia meaningfully. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the deletion of all such boxes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 15:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be neutral to deleting all such userboxes. They can be useful to get an idea of someone's interests or possible biases. But I'd oppose deleting only the ones for positions an angry mob opposes while keeping the ones for their side, since the angry mobs seem to have difficulty distinguishing between actually-bad and just-expresses-an-opposing-viewpoint. Anomie ⚔ 16:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worry that "political" may be conflated to end up supporting the removal of anything queer-related. Could we have assurances in any official thing that that wouldn't happen? Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support a total ban on political infoboxes. Addressing your concern, it's one thing to say "This user is queer" in the infobox. I'd question their judgment of posting their sexual orientation on the Internets, but if they really insist, there isn't much we can do. Just like editing under real-name identities - questionable practice but allowed.

It's another to say "This user feels queers are being discriminated against" or even "This user supports LGBT rights". The first is an open invitation to a shitshow; the second is quite innocuous in most Western societies but this is a political statement nevertheless and has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia - and it may be very controversial in, let's say, Pakistan. Also, consider this for comparison: "This user supports LGB rights", which will inevitably start all sorts of drama over transgender editors. Yeah, just sit back and get some popcorn.

If you are interested in queer topics on Wikipedia, "This user is part of WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies" is a great way to signal your editing preferences. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly my concern, thank you for the transparency Sock-the-guy (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal solution would be to remove connotation of politics from the rights of people, but that'd be difficult to implement because it isn't only on Wikipedia, this is across society. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 19:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the ban of political advocacy Userboxes. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nudging the question of a total ban of political userboxes

It appears from this discussion that there may be some support for banning political infoboxes (or "political advocacy" infoboxes). Before we proceed to further discussion, if it is ever needed, please tell me, among these userboxes, which kinds of userboxes would you be in favour of disallowing, if any?

I tried to sort them by categories so that it's easier to analyse them.

the A cluster is political. A is "this user supports country X", which would seem to endorse a certain position in the conflict, e.g. Israel-Palestine, Pakistan-India, Armenia-Azerbaijan, Ukraine-Russia etc. A1 just lists party membership, without any further indication of political beliefs. A2 endorses/opposes particular politicians or personalities reasonably connected to politics. A3 lists the user's ideology. A4 indicates user's attitude to a certain political phenomenon. A5 indicates a user's attitude to countries or supranational bodies.
B cluster is social. B is about LBGT issues (note: only in cases like: X should (not) have rights, should (not) serve in the military; it's not about declaring your sexual orientation), B1 is about opinions on marriage, B2 is about abortion, B3 is about censorship
C groups causes that may appear uncontroversial.

A. This user supports Palestine/This user supports Israel

A1. This user supports the American Solidarity Party/is a US Anti-Federalist, member of the Republican/Democratic/Labour/Liberal/Swiss People's Party...

A2. All userboxes in Category:Politician user templates or Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics by country (e.g. was against Assad/Ivan Duque/Juan Manuel Santos/Alvaro Uribe/Rodrigo Duterte/Stephen Harper/Justin Trudeau; Bernie Sanders for President Trump's the best; admires Amelia Andersdotter, Anna Politkovskaya, etc.

A3. This user is an anarchist, progressive, liberal, conservative, Communist, anti-Communist supports Hindutva/Pan-Slavism/MAGA (errm, I meant this), opposes monarchy, supports DEI, denies global warming...

A4. This user ardently opposes the alt-right/futarchy/believes that the alt-right is killing the US Republican Party/that white nationalism is Anti-American/demands that Azerbaijan release Armenian POWs

A5. This user supports a South-East Asian integrated community through ASEAN, against the EU/is Austro-European/supports the EU, Brexit templates, was against Euromaidan, against the UN... like 90% of the Category:Political user templates

B. Supports rights for queer people, gay people; does not support LGBT+ ideology due to legal, religious and moral reasons.

B1. Supports/opposes polyamorous marriage/supports cousin marriage/equal marriage for all/marriage only between one man and one woman/believes that marriage should be religious/is against extramarital sex/is generally against divorce

B2. Basically all templates in Category:Abortion user templates except User:UBX/Abortion, Template:User WikiProject Abortion and User:The Homosexualist/Irrelevabortion

B3. against most/no/all forms of censorship

C. Against dictators/terrorism/racism/oligarchy/slavery

C1. This user supports animal rights, Indigenous rights

Note that any infobox of the style "This user is part of WikiProject" or "This user is interested in" or "This user is gay" is not in the scope as it either directly refers to Wikipedia activity or else is not a political statement. Also note that it is for now more of a brainstorm to see which formulation of the userbox guideline will be potentially in play. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (userboxes)

If you ask me, I believe every single one of these is inappropriate. We don't get to endorse, or not endorse, people's political views or social views with political relevance. This is not our goal. Therefore, we either need to allow them all or ban them all. I totally understand the people's outrage when a guy posts a "this person is a proud Nazi" or "this person believes we have to straighten up the gays" on their userpage based on the notion that "this is clearly disruptive" but the thing is, it is only disruptive if people notice it, and the current guidance simply says "wait and see until a bunch of editors drag you to MfD" instead of just "don't do it". People who post such things are either trolls - a not-so-easy block for less obvious cases - or genuinely believe this and will go like "Wikipedia is biased and libtards rule there". To the fullest extent possible, Wikipedia should be apolitical and this is a way to do it. The benefit to keep these userboxes is minimal; the potential harm and waste of time - pretty big. Imagine a ARBPIA RfC where an editor looks up a userpage and see something like "This person supports Israel". Do you think the pro-Palestinian editor will never think along the lines of "he should not be editing here because he just said he's biased?" Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The conflation of support for human rights with discrimination in this makes it impossible to support. Sock-the-guy (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to announce support for human rights, you have plenty of options. Twitter, Bluesky, Blogspot, Wordpress, your local city hall, etc. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was not meant to be "support all or nothing". You are free to propose which infoboxes are appropriate or inappropriate within a category. In fact, that was the whole point - I need feedback. If we are speaking of B, which I think was one of your key points you mentioned to me, AFAIK LGBT rights is a political issue in quite a large part of the world (the T part is in particular is in the vogue in the Western world, there's even an ArbCom case request about it). My position is clear on this, and because this is a controversial issue (it shouldn't be, but it is), I could not put it into the C cluster. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, every single one of the listed examples violates WP:SOAPBOX and is a misuse of Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 21:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If political userboxes such as the ones listed above were banned, what's stopping editors from writing political statements on their userpages instead e.g. "This user supports/opposes _____."? Is there really a difference, for example, between having a userbox that says "This user supports Palestine" vs having an image of the Palestinian flag on their userpage with a message saying "I support Palestine"? Some1 (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that if we decide that userboxes like these are inappropriate, it would be automatically inappropriate to write their content in plaintext. Arguing that it wouldn't be inappropriate would be wikilawyering. Also see WP:UP#GOALS ("Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.") and WP:POLEMIC. That said, you make a good point. Updating WP:UP is probably a good idea. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say allow them all. This isn't (exactly) about free speech; it's legitimate to say "you can say what you want just not here". That said, it's sometimes useful to know where people are coming from. As long as it's a simple statement of position (even a radically unpopular position) and doesn't devolve into disruptive argumentation, I think it should be allowed. --Trovatore (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are appropriate if they are written in a straightforward way that is not an attack. They are useful to indicate the bias or worldview of the editor. Perhaps there could be a way to classify the political biases of editors by how they edit. But far more difficult for the casual observer to determine in general. For it to be soapbox material it should be very prominent and the main feature of the user page. Claims of discrimination and violation of human rights by the existence or use of a userbox are unfounded, as boxes do not take away any rights or do anything that discriminates. It is also more useful to have userboxes rather than use of plain text as that would ensure that text used meets our standards for decency, and also make it easy to find who uses that box. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the existence of pro-discrimination infoboxes does make it clear to the individuals who are being addressed that they are not wanted here. Putting the burden on the targeted individuals to enforce rules will lead to a reduced number of them that stick around. ExtantRotations (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At most, it suggests that there are some people who don't want them here. Which is always going to be true. There will always be some people who don't want you here. --Trovatore (talk) 02:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I decided almost 20 years ago to remove the closest things I had to political user boxes from my userpage [1], so, yeah, I don't think such things should be on a user page, but I am hesitant to make that a hard rule for others. - Donald Albury 00:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't use such userboxes, it's certainly far too broad a brush to do anything about these as a broad category. "political userboxes" is essentially and "political opinion" (in a box), and a "political opinion" is just an "opinion" because everything is political. We can't really have a "C groups causes that may appear uncontroversial", as that it an inherent contradiction. If something was uncontroversial, it would not be a "cause". If it's a cluster by cluster whack, there should be care to nix all opinions, even those widely agreed on by the community. CMD (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be escalating way beyond what I expected when originally asking. But what exactly do we mean by banning userboxes anyway? Like Some1 mentioned, it shouldn't stop people from writing the same statements directly on their user page. What about manually formatting them in boxes, without making them into transcludable templates/subpages? If that's allowed, then nothing should be stopping people from copying manually formatted boxes from other people's talk pages either. Deleting the index pages might add an inconvenience and discourage people from using them, but I don't think there's a realistic way to stop people from seeking them out. Maybe that's why the original solution from 2006 was just to userfy them. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- One issue with the userfication solution is that it largely amounted to much ado about nothing, as the userboxes hosted under User:UBX/Userboxes or anyone's user subpage are still performing the same function. Maybe they (and others that we think should be removed form Templatespace) should all be subst'ed. This would allow more diversity in users' self-expression and hold them directly accountable for the content they have on their userpage. I don't know if this will cause a significant increase in storage requirements; would appreciate if someone could do the numbers. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Userspace pages don’t speak for Wikipedia. This is a big thing for controversial Userboxes. Userfying diminishes the pecived problem. Subst’ing would work similarly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, “banning userboxes” would mean taking things in line with the username policy, whereby certain items would be eligible for immediate deletion or ban rather than allowing them to hang around until someone challenged them.

For clarity’s sake, I am also the IP further up this debate that asked about specific userboxes. In my opinion, I think “political userboxes” is a bit of an incorrect target. I do not have a problem with “political support” userboxes such as “this user supports Trump”. As much as I disagree with that statement politically, I don’t think it is designed to be inflammatory. But if the point of Wikipedia is to improve collaborative work, then it is counterproductive to allow userboxes that champion arguments Wikipedia itself deems as biased or false. ExtantRotations (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of this discussion, I don't want to touch with a ten foot pole. However in opposition to the maximalist view here, I do think some ideological userboxes are helpful as an easy way for editors to disclose possible sources of bias, which is part of WP:DGF. -- LWG ^talk 16:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with LWG.

My current rule of thumb is that if a rule would require changes to User:Orangemike, then I don't want that rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allow them all - although I hadn't expected to be cited as an example, I agree with LWG and WhatamIdoing that they serve as a method of full disclosure. I thus acknowledge my belief systems and my preferences, and fully expect people to take them into account when giving my edits the scrutiny we all deserve. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already have established Wikipedia:No Nazis as a deletion reason for Userboxes, Userboxes that you won’t find any more. Do you mean “go no further”? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not going to frame it as a !vote (yet), or for any option, but I'm somewhat supportive. It fuels disruption that could've otherwise been prevented, and for little gain. The benefit of disclosure does not seem to me like it outweighs the other costs. Furthermore, if it's so valuable, is a possible conclusion that we must all disclose our political positions on user pages? Surely not. Therefore, this argument doesn't move me very much. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like this type of disclosure only becomes relevant when a problem (such as POV pushing) arises. However, if the problem has been identified, it is superfluous- barring exceptional cases. Dege31 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At one point I put a bunch of political userboxes on my page, then I later removed them, and I think they should be deleted and removed because they are kind of a trap. Andre🚐 00:32, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No change necessary. Imho, your userspace is clearly your userspace, and to the extent that WP is not used for webhosting or copyright violations, you should be free to use your userspace as you see fit. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 14:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question was about templatespace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what problem gets solved by removing these. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Acquiescence to hand wringing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allow them all. I often find userboxes silly and don't use them, but I still strongly hold to the idea of a user page as a freeform self-identification page. Especially with the Internet how it is now, all smoothed out by Corporate Memphis and CSS frameworks, I love seeing userpages that remind me of the old days. If a user wants to include inflammatory statements on their userpage, fine by me. If they're really the kind of person that wants to make Wikipedia a soapbox for their cause then they'll surely end up blocked for that in their other activities. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No change. The userbox wars (just linking to a small part of them) were more damaging to Wikipedia than userboxes ever were. Let's not repeat that. —Kusma (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and I'd support a moratorium on future userbox wars so these discussions can be summarily closed on sight. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No change User pages are a space for a user to describe themselves, or do whatever within reason. Userboxes help to announce a bias a user may have. For example, I have userboxes realated to both the Halo video game franchise and the Dune franchise, and users have used those to point out that I may be bias towards the frachises in discussions. I wouldn't say being a fan or having a belief is a conflict of interest in of itself, as people wouldn't edit articles they weren't interested in, but userboxes are a fun way to disclose this stuff. Why even have user pages if we can't decorate them and make them fun? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should do away with userboxes completely. Userboxes have an air of officiality that can make it seem that Wikipedia is expressing support for whatever position is noted by the box. If you want to tell me that you support such and such, or believe such and such, or like something or other, you should be willing to state it simply and clearly in your own words. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many userboxes aren't for expressing personal opinions. novov talk edits 07:14, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the rules need to be that harsh. Also, what would it change to remove the userboxes yet let editors still state their opinions in their own words? It might actually make userboxes more divisive, because there could be less clarity and then that could generate disputes. --cheesewhisk3rs ≽^•⩊•^≼ ∫ (pester) 08:11, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, a userbox has an air of official endorsement from Wikipedia. Such endorsements arusually not appropriate for the site to be making. This impression could even have the effect of disuading people from editing here.Why would you wish to edit somewhere that apparently supports people you hate or who hate you? I might not mind them so much if they were worded more as personal statement ("I like ____") instead of an official sounding classification ("This user likes ____"). As for being more divisive, if a clear statement of your own likes/beliefs/positions causes problems, then it's probably not something you need to be talkung about here. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intrusive animations

I have just encountered an active user's talk page with animated snowflakes. It was such a severe barrier to accessibility for me (and no doubt for others), that I could not read the page without viewing the source.

I have copied the relevant code to User:Pigsonthewing/Snowflakes so you can see what that looks like without singling out the individual.

At what point do we deem such gimmicks as contrary and detrimental to Wikipedia's purpose, and remove them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 19#RfC: allowing editors to opt-out of seeing floating decorative elements arrived at a consensus to wrap "floating" decorative elements that do not otherwise conflict with the user page or talk page guidelines with a CSS class. so that it can be hidden, see WP:STICKYDECO. That is not directly relevant given the markup used on your snowflakes page (and presumably the page you originally saw it) doesn't keep the object in a fixed position. I would argue however that non-sticky decorative elements that "interfere with communication between editors" meet the spirit of the policy and should at minimum be similarly wrapped. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying HTML code is indeed flagged with a sticky-decoration CSS class and so users can opt out of seeing it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:User pages § Sticky decorative elements. isaacl (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is of little use to logged-out editors; those (including me, before now) who are not aware of this facility; those who lack the technical chops to make use of it; or those who wish to see most other "sticky" elements, but not those which cause accessibility issues.

I now see that WP:SMI says: "CSS and other formatting codes that disrupt the MediaWiki interface, for example by preventing important links or controls from being easily seen or used, making text on the page hard to read or unreadable ... may be removed or remedied by any user." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Logged-out editors spend very little time looking at pages outside the mainspace; you are now aware of this facility (and are welcome to advertise it further); I've never encountered a registered editor whose "technical chops" does not include scrolling to the end of the Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets-gadget-section-appearance section, ticking the box for the last item, and saving their change to their prefs, but if there are any, then the principle behind Wikipedia:Competence is required may be relevant.

If you meant that people who have the "technical chops" to create such CSS elements will not also have the "technical chops" necessary to make them hideable, editors who can do CSS (a group that does not include me) assure me that this will never be true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I've never encountered a registered editor whose "technical chops" does not include scrolling to..."

I've encountered a great many. It's not an issue of competence; you will find no mention of user-gadgets on the linked page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping our editors happy by allowing them to customise their user page is usually more helpful for Wikipedia's purpose than policing other people's userspace. Editors who do not like it can opt out or ignore the user pages they dislike. —Kusma (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Keeping our editors happy by allowing them to customise their user page is usually more helpful for Wikipedia's purpose than..."

I can understand why someone might think that; I'd love to see some evidence to back it up (for some value of "keeping happy", if that's what such animations really do). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are RfCs required to amend MOS pages?

A user has removed the MOS:AIUPSCALE paragraph of MOS:IMAGES because I didn't raise an RfC before adding it back in 2023.

The paragraph's addition was proposed and discussed on the MOS's talk page. The thread ran for three months, had some strong support, and included a full month's wait to see if anyone objected to a proposed wording before applying it. It didn't occur to me to open an RfC, as a consensus among those watching MOS:IMAGES seemed very clear.

Is the user right to remove this paragraph? If I need to start a new RfC to add the paragraph, how should the broken inbound shortcut be handled during that? Belbury (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is required to create a new policy or guideline page (WP:PROPOSAL), but not for changes (WP:PGCHANGE). The change in question was discussed and clearly had consensus, so there was no reason to proceed with an RFC. The editor objecting to the material should seek consensus to remove it.--Trystan (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll restore the paragraph and advise this. Belbury (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed Epidemic: Tag Bombing Violates Good Faith and Hurts Wikipedia!

Problem Summary

Current Wikipedia policy already acknowledges problematic tagging practices. The official Wikipedia:Citation needed policy warns editors to "Tag thoughtfully. Avoid 'hit-and-run' or pointed tagging", and the citation needed template documentation acknowledges that "many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as 'drive-by' tagging."

While Wikipedia essays like Wikipedia:Tag bombing describe extreme cases of abuse, the core problem lies in policy implementation. Current policy provides warnings against excessive tagging but lacks enforcement mechanisms or clear consequences for violation. Community discussion archives show ongoing frustration with editors describing citation tags as "frivolous and wrongheaded" and articles being "bombarded by 'citation needed'" tags, indicating widespread recognition that current policy implementation is insufficient.

As far as I can tell from reviewing community discussions, no prior systematic analysis has quantified the scale or validity of citation tagging practices. This appears to be the first statistical study to measure the scope of the problem and provide evidence-based foundations for policy reform.

The core dysfunction is unequal burden: non-expert editors can place tags in seconds, while subject matter experts must spend hours finding sources for content they know to be accurate, creating perverse incentives that favor destruction over construction.

Evidence

Statistical Analysis

Wikipedia carries an estimated 1.6 million citation-needed tags^[1] across 8% of all Wikipedia articles^[2], yet evidence suggests at least 80% of these tags are unnecessary^[3] - representing sourceable content that simply lacks formal citations. This estimate likely understates the true burden, as it counts each tag equally regardless of scope. Article-level templates like {{More citations needed}} can justify removing thousands of words requiring dozens of sources, while inline tags typically affect single statements.

Case Examples

Recent cases illustrate where existing policies failed to prevent abuse, demonstrating extreme burden asymmetries:

Case 1: Floppy disk article - On June 5, 2024, an editor added 27 citation-needed tags in a single edit session (~5 minutes effort). On July 13, 2025, a different editor removed all 27 tagged statements en masse (~5 minutes effort), while restoration would require a subject expert ~9 hours to find 27 sources. Effort ratio: 108:1 favoring destruction.

Case 2: Conner Peripherals article - One 2016 article-level template (~30 seconds to place) enabled removal of 7,000 bytes containing approximately factual claims in 2025 (~5 minutes to remove). Restoration would require the article's primary contributor to locate approximately 15 reliable sources (~5 hours research). Effort ratio: 600:1 favoring destruction.

Discussion of CN Tag Use

Given this evidence of systematic over-tagging affecting 1.6+ million tags across 8% of Wikipedia's articles, with significant burden asymmetries favoring content destruction over construction:

Is there consensus that Wikipedia's current citation tagging policies need reform to address these documented problems?

If so, I propose a follow-up discussion to collaboratively develop specific policy improvements. If not, I welcome feedback on the evidence presented above.

References:

^ Random sampling of 125 articles from tagged population found an average of 2.96 tags per tagged article. Extrapolating across 553,000 articles: 1.63 million total tags (95% confidence interval: 1.18M - 2.09M). Full methodology and code available at https://github.com/Tom94022/wikipedia-fact-tag-analysis
^ 553,000 tagged articles ÷ ~6.8 million total Wikipedia articles = 8.1% of articles. This contrasts with the commonly cited "1% of pages" figure, which includes non-encyclopedic content across Wikipedia's ~70 million total pages.
^ Systematic study using Citation Hunt tool: 30 randomly generated citation-needed tags analyzed. Results: 24 citations added with little or no change, 4 added with minor revision, 2 removed as unverifiable. Statistical confidence: 99% probability that at least 80% of existing tags are referenceable (28/30 success rate). See User:Tom94022/sandbox/Fact_Tag_Validity.

Tom94022 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please indicate Support or Oppose followed by your reasoning.

If my calculator is correct, a sample of a population of 1.6 million would require a sample size of 385 to provide statistically significant results with +/-5% confidence intervals. And that's assuming that {{cn}} are evenly distributed across subjects/periods of activity/etc., which they almost certainly aren't. As we say in the field, further research is needed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosguill: The population is 553,000 so I think the confidence interval is correct. I thought about more sampling but that won't change the large number of tags that exist, just more work but if you think it will make a difference I can do it. Tom94022 (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[E]vidence suggests at least 80% of these tags are unnecessary - representing sourceable content that simply lacks formal citations. I am confused, isn't that one of the main functions of {{citation needed}} tags? We want content to be supported by sources (remember, it's verifiability, not truth), and content that lacks sources but can plausibly be sourced is exactly the kind of content that needs to be tagged (instead of content that is most likely unsupported by sources, which should usually be removed outright). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to say the same thing. That's the point of citation-needed. This whole thing seems backwards to me. The problem is verifiable-but-unsourced content, not pointing it out. Schazjmd (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether any given bit of verifiable-but-uncited content is a "problem" may be in the eye of the beholder. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is always a problem. Text is bullshit until proven otherwise with a citation. Note, a citation includes an articla as citation for its lead, a novel as citation for its plot, an album as citation for its tracklist and all other such things. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yet we have editors claiming that lead material is uncited, plot sections are uncited, track listings are uncited... You apparently see those as being implicitly cited, but not everyone does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like an LLM rewrote it - all the bolding and dramatic terms and so on. Could you please summarise it in a couple of sentences in your own words? I can't quite make sense of what it's actually proposing as a change. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reading it over a few more times, I think you're concerned that it is easier to remove material than add it (I would agree), and that this is somehow unfair and people should be stopped from removing it (I would disagree). I can't quite see how you stop people doing that, though, without completely gutting Wikipedia:Verifiability - which is pretty foundational to the project. Yes, sourcing is hard and time consuming. But it's important. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. Pray tell how what I did is a "documented problem." For clarity of those in the discussion, this is likely associated with my revert of OP on Conner Peripherals. The page was tagged for nine years as needing citations so I removed the unsourced content. I think the bigger documented problem would be the restoring of the content by OP, calling my removal "vandalism." --CNMall41 (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There should be essay on not trying to resolve your content dispute by changing policy. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:30, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Substantive changes: "Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose it when making the edits". But he's not editing any policies, and he obviously did disclose it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't quite match up to my point. This is self evidently a discussion about policy and resolving a content dispute, which was the point of my comment. I never said that they hadn't disclosed that this was a result of a content dispute, as that would be irrelevant to what I was saying. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned ONUS, but WP:BURDEN would have been more relevant. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:33, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:PRESERVE. Also Wikipedia:Let the Wookiee win, which I plan to keep linking to until @Blueboar finally starts the page. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If content has been challenged, and subsequently removed, then anyone wanting to re-add the content is under WP:BURDEN. If editors are removing content in bad faith, and it should have instead been WP:PRESERVED then that's a different question to the being asked here. If editors challenge content it requires referencing, per WP:MINREF. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don’t know what WAID is referring to by “WP:Let the Wookie win”… this is my advice for editors who are in “contested challenges” situations. In short: you have a choice - you can spend hours (even days) in frustrating, endless debate… trying to convince a stubborn challenger (the Wookie) that a citation isn’t actually required or you can spend ten minutes locating a source and adding it (even though it isn’t required). My advice is to always go with the latter option. It waists less of your time and does wonders for your blood pressure. Blueboar (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging information that requires citation is a feature, not a bug. Yes, it would be great if more editors looked for sources, but at least we know what we need to look for. Blueboar (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRESERVE. I think "citation needed" tags are extremely useful. They indicate at a sentence level exactly what needs to be sourced, helping subsequent editors. They provide a metric for statistical analysis at the sentence level. They usually repeatedly pop up on controversial statements which are subject of edit wars, showing where conflict between editors exists. Most important, they indicate to our readers while they are reading exactly which statements are not supported by sources and/or are controversial. I agree tag bombing is a problem, but this could be dealt with by a series of automated warnings on the editor's Talk page. I suspect if only 8% of articles have "citation needed" tags, we are not using them enough.--Chetvorno^TALK 21:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm posting here in response to an alert by ‪Tom94022. It is not clear to me what precisely is the problem is (what constitutes "tag bombing", and why it is a problem), and what specific change to policy is being proposed to address it. Nightscream (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
at least 80% of these tags are unnecessary it's not clear to me that just because a claim is referencable, {{citation needed}} is unnecessary. For example, some types of content require a citation: marking those claims with {{cn}} strikes me as obviously a good thing even if they are in fact true. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same.--Chetvorno^TALK 21:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom94022: Your beef doesn't seem to be with tags but with the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy... "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people are able to check that information corresponds to what is stated in a reliable source. Its content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it." Even if its true its almost always appropriate to add a CN tag to an unsourced statement. The target of your vitriol also seems wrong... Why is the problem the person tagging text as unsourced not the person inserting unsourced text? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Current practice is that everything beyond "the sky is blue" must be referenced. That 20% of the uncited text is in error or a hoax is very disturbing. Actually, it is appalling. I understand that some newcomers add unsourced material in good faith, but unsourced additions must be removed immediately. Providing references to unreferenced text takes more effort than adding it properly in the first place, and so unsourced additions are much worse than vandalism because they absorb more of our time and hoaxes and misinformation undermines our credibility. So admins have to give dealing with this a higher priority than dealing with vandalism. Taggging should only be used where it is expected that the tagger or another editor will be along to resolve the issue in short order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have an expansive idea of what's "the sky is blue", then your position is wrong. These days, WP:V requires inline citations in four cases:
- direct quotations,
- material whose verifiability has been challenged,
- material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
- contentious material about living and recently deceased persons.
WP:LIKELY is the dictionary definition, as in more than 50% chance of someone actually issuing a WP:CHALLENGE to the verifiability of the claim. "Likely" does not mean "conceivably possible that someone might someday, possibly in a WP:POINTY-headed moment, decide to complain about the absence of a citation".

In contrast to your claim that unsourced additions must be removed immediately, WP:V says the opposite: Whether or how quickly material should be removed for lacking an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article... In other words, sometimes uncited material shouldn't be removed at all, and there definitely isn't a one-size-fits-all rule that it "must be removed immediately".

I also disagree with your assertion that Providing references to unreferenced text takes more effort than adding it properly in the first place. This will be true sometimes and false other times, and when we are talking about "newcomers" specifically, it's very often going to be less net effort for them to add some content and an experienced editor to find and add a source than for them to figure out how to add the source "properly". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that all unsourced content will eventually be removed or sourced. Is that incorrect? If you need to lose on a technicality I can challenge all unsourced content on the wiki in-toto right here, right now. That would mean that all unsourced content on the wiki at that moment has been challenged, can we just assume that or does it need to be done? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect.

In fact, statements along the lines of "I challenge all unsourced material from here to infinity" have been given for over a decade as a simple example of uncollegial pointy-headedness that admins might well consider blockworthy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate the veiled threat... What would be your understanding? Is there a significant amount of text which is supposed to go unsourced forever? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we get rid of WP:LEADCITE, we will always have uncited leads, and if FAs are any indication, those will both constitute "a significant amount of text" and be uncited in a majority of articles in some subject areas (e.g., history).

WP:CONSECUTIVECITE discourages repeating citations when individual facts are repeated within the same article. Depending on the subject, that, too, could constitute a significant amount of text. For example, Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable#Put the easier parts of the article up front recommends adding a paragraph to the top of a technical ==section== that summarizes the content of the section. This can result in an unsourced paragraph, but that doesn't mean that any of the facts are unsourced in the article. Citations are supposed to support facts/claims, not grammatical units/amounts of text.

The community (though if memory serves, not you) generally agrees with the WP:PLOTCITE standard, that straightforward descriptions of a work's plot/contents, if they can be verified by reading the book, watching the film, etc., do not require any citations. I estimate that this means that something on the order of half a million articles about books, films, etc., are allowed by our rules to have one completely uncited, potentially multi-paragraph ==Plot== section, plus potentially other uncited sections containing material about the work (e.g., a list of film actors, since that's visible in the film's end credits; a list of authors who contributed to an anthology, since that's visible in the table of contents, etc.).

In summary, yes: I expect that – unless we change the rules – there will always be an amount of text in Wikipedia that is not required by any policy to have an inline citation, and that amount will seem, at least to some editors, to be "significant". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't supposed to be anything in the lead which isn't directly supported by reliable sources in the article. Under CONSECUTIVECITE the text is still fully cited, the citation just isn't repeated but its in the article (this is the same as the lead). I have no problem with the WP:PLOTCITE standard, but thats not a case where there isn't a source... The subject text or media is the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's still all an "amount of text which is supposed to go unsourced forever". You asked about an "amount of text", not about "facts in an article" WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No... Just because something doesn't have a direct inline citation doesn't mean that its unsourced. Your examples are all examples where the text/fact is sourced to a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of uncited content, what is the source that 20% of uncited text is in error or a hoax? Sounds unlikely. --Chetvorno^TALK 22:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably that came from OP's claim that only 20% of the tags they reviewed required changes to article content beyond adding a citation. -- LWG ^talk 22:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope that it is wrong. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:04, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that it's a very broad estimate, but different people have different ideas about what requires changes. Is it an "error if the article about a company gives an outdated number of employees? Some would say yes, and some would say no. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requiring changes to article content beyond adding a citation doesn't necessarily mean it's factually wrong, just that based on one user's time and search access, they couldn't verify the claim. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 05:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be surprising that in the majority of cases the only action required to resolve a Citation Needed tag is to add the needed citation. That is what the tag is for. If there is reason to seriously doubt whether a particular bit of content is true, you shouldn't tag it Citation Needed, you should tag it with a Verification Needed or Dubious - Discuss or similar tag, or simply remove it. Citation Needed is the appropriate tag if you think content should probably remain in the article, but you think it needs better support since readers or other editors might challenge it. -- LWG ^talk 22:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember the first time I saw this argument back in 2007 or so. My response was to point out that the number of unsourced articles that had been created in the preceding week had been greater than the number of "citation needed" tags that had been added. I don't think completely unsourced articles are being added now, but I assume that unsourced content is still being added faster that "citation needed" tags are. After all, I don't tag every bit of unsourced content I see added to articles on my watchlist, and I suspect many articles to which unsourced content is added are not watched by anyone who does add the tags. - Donald Albury 01:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was summoned here via a talk page notification. There's a reason this work is volunteer work. WP:V and specifically WP:BURDEN are community agreed upon policy, these are non-negotiable if we expect society and the world to take our efforts seriously. To think this started because I had the audacity to ask for sources for claims made in two different technology related articles is... baffling, but here we are. In case it's not abundantly obvious, I oppose the notion that tagging unsourced challenged material is a problem or that removing unsourced material after a reasonable amount of time has passed will somehow bring the project to a grinding halt. But just because you self-identify as an "expert" on a topic doesn't mean you just get to trot out WP:TRUSTMEBRO when someone challenges something you believe to be true but that isn't backed up in any reliable sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging should be done thoughtfully. If I am working on an article I will try to locate sources for the content, but if something seems right and I lack the skill to find a proper source, I can add {{cn}}. That's an example of thoughtful tagging. Running around slapping tags on tons of articles without taking any time to try to improve them first is an example of thoughtless tagging. Another problem with tagging is when the tagged isn't specific enough about the problems. Tags should be applied to individual statements when possible, or perhaps a section of an article, and only rarely to the whole article. It's a good idea to leave a talk page message explaining why the tag was applied with an explanation of what the tagger may have done to improve the article, what further work is needed, and what impediment they might have run into. For example, "I tried to fix this article but this section is too technical for me and may require an expert to help identify proper sources." That's useful guidance for the next person. I think the best we can do is to provide people with good guidance and have a culture of making positive contributions whenever we can. Jehochman ^Talk 11:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a tradeoff between leaving multiple [citation needed] tags in an unsourced section or article or one big "unsourced" notice at the top. I drop CN tags fairly often, and I also occasionally work to find sources when I see a CN tag. But, I never feel like I have enough time to do everything I think I need to do in WP, and some cases would be particularly time-consuming for me to research, whereas someone else will find it easier to locate sources. I see problems that I don't have time to fix at the moment, so I'll tag them. Maybe I'll come back to them later, or maybe someone will find time to fix them, but if they go untagged, it is less likely they will be fixed eventually. Donald Albury 13:00, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that tagging (or even removing) uncited information can be a “positive contribution”. Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding editorial tags where needed is itself a positive contribution and one of the core duties of an editor... We're called editors after all not writers or researchers. Tagging the issue is helping fix the issue. Tagging an article is improving an article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate 'tag bombing' is poor practice, not least because it does not actually effectively identify unsourced text. When all that is done is tag the ends of paragraphs for example, subsequent removals of tagged text can reduce the average quality of the article. However, that does not make the addition of cn tags a burden. Things should be sourced. I've encountered decades-old unsourced text that has been wrong. No doubt there is more out there. If the thought is that chasing up relatively easily verifiable text is lengthy, that can pale against the hours that can be spent trying to verify a piece of unsourced text that feels right but you can't be sure of. CMD (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mea Culpa

I need to pause this discussion and apologize for letting it drift into citation needed tags in general, which I support. My concern is more specific: analysis of 365 randomly sampled articles shows the median article with fact tags contains only 3 tags total. When an editor adds 27 citation needed tags to a single article in one session without explanation, I think it's reasonable to discuss whether this helps or hurts Wikipedia. I'll return with comprehensive statistics on these mass tagging patterns vs. normal editorial behavior, rather than conflating this with the broader (and legitimate) need for citation work. Tom94022 (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My replies wouldn’t change. Sometimes editors become overzealous in enforcing our rules. That is disruptive no matter what the rule being enforced is… but it is a problem with the editor, not a flaw with the rules. Blueboar (talk) 00:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have tags that can be applied to entire articles or entire sections that are largely unsourced, and these should be used rather than adding a large number of cn tags to individual sentences. That's the only problem I see. In particular, the idea that a cn tag is wrong if something is sourceable is wrong wrong wrong. The opposite is true: cn tags are for things that are not sourced, should be sourced, and probably can be sourced. Used wisely, they help article improvement. Zero^talk 02:10, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this is where context is important... The vast majority of the time its going to be appropriate to upgrade the tag to the topic or page level but on really long articles with a real mix of sourced and unsourced content a dozen or more individual CN tags might actually be better because the issues are still relatively minor in the scheme of the topics and page overall. I also see competing demands being placed on the editor... On the one hand we tell them to be as specific as possible when pointing problems out (but we get annoyed at the use of tags that are too involved), and on the other we tell them to be less specific through the use of section and page tags instead of multiple specific ones (but we get annoyed at the use of tags which are overly general). Thats a hard balance to learn for any editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Individual {{citation needed}} tags also appear in Wikipedia:Citation Hunt, which is another reason why an editor might want more inline tags and fewer whole-article or whole-section tags. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is an excellent reason. In that same line there are many editors who are very willing to address a CN tag or two while reading/exploring but wouldn't necessarily have the time, energy, or expertise to review the entire article for sourcing issues and address them. Breaking these big tasks into smaller tasks makes them much more likely to actually get done. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split discussion

I don't see that it's been mentioned here, so just notifying that a parallel discussion was started at WT:V#Excessive Tagging and the Spirit of Verifiability for anyone interested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN and consensus

Among the various problems arising from ITN and its process, there are some issues about how WP:CONSENSUS is applied there. I'm asking the community to clarify which parts of consensus and other P&G apply to ITN, and what the appropriate action is when those are not followed.

The first problem is head count votes. Votes that are normally subject to WP:DISCARD are included under headcounts. Especially prominent are "I don't like it", "other stuff exists", "crystal ball", and "arbitrary quantity" arguments, where editors support or oppose based on whether they personally find the subject interesting, whether past flawed ITN-consensus resulted in posts, predictions about how a different event could happen (or not happen) in the future that overshadows the one being discussed, or whether there's some arbitrary metric like people dead (which is why you see so many random "people died" posts of questionable notability). I raised this issue last year at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive365#Close review: X blocked in Brazil, where it was deemed so bad that it led to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments.

The second problem is the rushed and improper closes. I get that the standard one week isn't practical at ITN and shorter discussions are necessary, but it's common for consensus to be decided a few hours after they begin, even when there is disagreement and further discussion is taking place, as admins will cast WP:SUPERVOTEs to post or archive a proposed item.

I fear that many of the editors at ITN do not understand how consensus works on Wikipedia, because many of them participate in this area almost exclusively. A few weeks ago I raised my concerns on the talk page of one of the admins who frequents ITN, Stephen, but he disagreed that the standards for closes should apply at ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 20:46, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diff for the discussion with Stephen mentioned. Curbon7 (talk) 22:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien, at the most fundamental, basic level, consensus means that editors agree. A lack of consensus means that they don't agree. (BTW, this fact, which occasionally surprises editors, is stated in plain language, in the same section as the WP:DISCARD paragraph, as its second sentence.)

All this stuff about which arguments should be accepted are ways of determining whether the couple of folks in a particular discussion are likely forming an agreement that the broader community will be able to tolerate. And they don't apply in every situation. For example, it's perfectly fine to have your recommendation in a Wikipedia:Requests for adminship discussion be "based on personal opinion only". And DISCARD is self-contradictory: It begins by saying not to count votes, and in the middle of the paragraph, says the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it. One of These Things (Is Not Like the Others), right? I therefore suggest that you put less emphasis on the Official Rules™ of closing a discussion and more on whether most editors, mostly, most of the time, more or less agree.

It's also important to remember that ITN is not a "content" decision (e.g., like whether X source supports Y statement, or whether it's WP:DUE to say that a notable person was arrested for drunk driving). ITN is a "process" decision (e.g., like whether an article does/doesn't meet the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria). Therefore some content-focused rules simply don't apply to ITN. Others (e.g., Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) might be even more important (e.g., CRYSTAL being a perfectly reasonable argument against including any proposed page that's full of "unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumption" on the Main Page – though one might suspect that the editors naming it are actually saying that the event's Wikipedia:Subjective importance seems low to them, and that their objection has little to do with the policy at CRYSTAL, which you may find worth reading some time). As you say, some procedural differences are expected. Closing within hours should be expected for ITN, just like closing within hours should be expected at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Tempus fugit, and some parts of Wikipedia shouldn't sit around chatting for a minimum of 24 hours just for form's sake, especially if the decision is "over my dead body". If we add something to ITN and regret it, we can remove it. And if we reject it quickly and regret that, we can add it later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DISCARD says to discard arguments not rooted in PAGs, and then evaluate which of the remaining valid arguments has more support among editors. That ITN is a process decision vs. a content decision is irrelevant. Your comparison to FAC is particularly inapt. FAC has a clear set of standards, whereas ITN's standards (if you can call them that) are based on subjective determinations of whether a topic is "important" enough to be on the main page. The idea that an entry can be rejected at ITN because a bunch of ITN regulars (many of whom don't regularly participate in other parts of the encyclopedia, as TBA has noted) don't think something is "important" is absolutely contrary to the praxis of consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:52, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts, I think you're overlooking the contextual factors. When was the last time you saw an RFA support vote discarded on the grounds that it was "based on personal opinion only" or "not rooted in PAGs"? (Ever?)

Since RFA isn't strictly following the advice given at DISCARD, then only two things are possible:

All of our RFAs are violating the One True™ Rules for closing discussions, or
DISCARD isn't telling us the whole story that applies to every single decision.

Which do you pick? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 'crats abide by pretty clear standards when they have to evaluate an RfA in a 'crat chat. RfA is also different because it's about the trust of the community, which can only be measured by editors' opinions. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to you that many decisions are about editors' opinions. Shall we tag this page as a policy, guideline, or essay? Editors' opinions are the only thing that matters. Even things that are directly and obviously in the mainspace, such as the RFCs about which of several acceptable images to put in the lead, are ultimately decided by editors' opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that editors opinions matter. Those opinions are usually guided by some ground rules that we as a community have adopted. ITN has been resistant to having any such ground rules other than a vague, subjective standard. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes ground rule that can be derided as "a vague, subjective standard" is the only workable ground rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a content decision about what goes on the Main Page, but it is basically a mostly unbounded editorial judgement, like an eccentric collective editor-in-chief, who decides what goes on the front page, because . . . and follows some basic content decorum. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's my impression as well. A decision has to be made, and so editors make a decision. But the decision is based on "mostly unbounded editorial judgement".

There is, frankly, no possibility of finding reliable sources that will provide solid external guidance. We're not going to see "Science proves the English Wikipedia should put more articles about science and fewer articles about deaths in ITN". There's nothing to stop an editor from forming their own ideas about the criteria that they believe – using their own, mostly unbounded editorial judgment – would be best, but they're not going to be able to force others to follow their rules.

Ditto for all the other sections on the Main Page, by the way. TFA is a selection process, and it is not driven by what reliable sources say should be highlighted in the top left corner. DYK is a selection process, and it is not driven by what reliable sources say should be highlighted. TFP is a selection process, and it is not driven by what kind of image reliable sources say we should put on the Main Page. ITN draws more fire, but that might be because of two factors: More demand for the limited space, and being more honest about the selection being made by editorial judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the core, I think a big problem is that ITN still has an identity problem, some editors want to be covering news, others as featuring articles that happen to be in the news, which work to two different ends. I asked that question a handful of years ago, and it was very much a near-even split. Which is why we get these types of debates about what is consensus are not cleanly resolved. And our guidelines that drive how such discussions should go is very much a core of that identity problem because they seem to cover both directions. Masem (t) 03:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me that I haven't seen your name at m:Public consultation about Wikinews, which is "a community reevaluation of Wikinews, by Wikinews and other communities" (emphasis in the original), with the possibility that Wikinews will be spun off to a different organization, archived, or whatever else we suggest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not convinced by the no external sources thing, as a deciding issue -- the problem is no internal consensus to further bound the judgement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that, even though there is an internal consensus (after all, the process has been working this way for many years), some editors are surprised to discover that said consensus is "use your judgement" and specifically not to "follow the sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not a consensus problem, that is a lack of consensus problem. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two sides of the same coin?

I think it might be a values problem: The community has a consensus (i.e., this is how this process works, for pragmatic reasons), but "I" think the community is wrong, because I think the process should be based on our reverence for sources instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, two sides. But seems overwrought to call it "values". It's a process issue, concerning guidance for judgement making that can be agreed upon or not (here, there being thin guidance or even purpose disagreement within ITN). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the disagreement is based in a difference of values. ITN has several such, e.g., "I value helping readers find relevant articles, so put that article up now" vs "I value Wikipedia's reputation for quality, so delay that article until it has been improved".

In this case, I think that the traditional dispute over which content to list ("Whatever's most popular with the readers" vs "Ugh, not another article about ____ – we're here to educate, not to mimic the internet's pre-existing systemic biases") has developed a different dimension: "Use common sense and some vague advice" vs "Every decision must be backed by a reliable source, even decisions about which items to put in ITN and for how long". It appears that some editors believe we'll get a better result by following sources instead of common sense. They value sources above judgement. This POV was certainly a small minority back in the day, but I think things have changed. I suspect that most of our younger editors really can't imagine a circumstance in which Wikipedia:Ignore all rules should be invoked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up before. Recently, there was a close it down discussion. My take, you are stuck with a vote there, with some norms followed, except when they are not. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second problem is the rushed and improper closes. I get that the standard one week isn't practical at ITN and shorter discussions are necessary, but it's common for consensus to be decided a few hours after they begin ...: If you're referring to closes without posting, WP:ITN/A reads:

If there is not consensus to post the item and the nomination has had suitable time to run (generally 24 hours), nominations can be closed.

Personally, I've stopped early ITN closes, not wanting to deal with the occasional passionate editor who insists there's still a chance, while everyone else remains silent. —Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be mentioned or linked in this thread, but about a month ago, there was also the village pump discussion WP:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 82#Follow up discussion on ITN. Left guide (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to get ban removed

Hi. I'm currently not allowed to create new articles, because in past I've made extremely short and poorly sources articles. However, I would like to appeal to get the ban removed. How do I do that? Best regards. --Pek (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#User:Pek_continuing_to_mass_create_poor-quality_stubs_after_ban_expiry, I believe. If I understand WP:UNBAN correctly, you go to WP:AN, explain what you did wrong, if you have breached the topicban at any point since it was implemented, and why you think the topicban is no longer necessary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to @GorillaWarfare if you want to add anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I've left my comments over at the unban discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal for article creation ban removal. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the admin inactivity requirements

Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Night Gyr recently generated 66,000 words of divisive debate, ostensibly about Night Gyr, but really about our inactivity requirements. A week after the ~~petition~~ debate officially closed, it continues on the talk page. Two other recalls (Master Jay and Gimmetrow) were also about inactivity. So it seems clear to me we need to revisit the admin activity policy. Perhaps the limits need to be raised. Or maybe we need to have clarity about what constitutes "gaming". Or, maybe we need to state that inactivity is not a valid WP:RECALL reason. One way or another, we need to prevent a repeat of the Night Gyr debacle. RoySmith (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is still open: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Revisiting_WP:INACTIVITY. Some1 (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I wasn't aware of that other thread, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And before that, two months ago there was Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 203#Admin inactivity rules workshopping. Anomie ⚔ 13:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Perhaps admin activity requirements need to be raised"? Hah. There are no admin activity requirements. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are: At least one edit or logged action in every rolling 12 month period, and at least 100 edits in every rolling 5 year period. See WP:INACTIVE. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An edit is not an administrative action requiring "the tools" to perform, covered under WP:ADMINACCT. To put it in other words there are no requirements to actually use "the tools". Most other stuff, including a lot of actions of significant import, any Tom, Dick or Harry can boldly perform as a "non-administrative close". Admins aren't even required to perform any of those, they can just let the non-admins do 90% of the work. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the same as there being no activity requirements. They are expressed as edits or logged actions because not every admin action is logged. If you want to change that then propose an alternative in the linked idea lab thread. Thryduulf (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken admins to task for making unexplained edits to fully-protected material on the main page. i.e. {{DYK}}. If it requires the bit to do, WP:ADMINACCT requires that you explain yourself if asked. RoySmith (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. An edit to a non-fully-protected page is not an administrative action requiring "the tools" to perform, covered under WP:ADMINACCT. An edit to a fully-protected page is an administrative action requiring "the tools" to perform, as is an edit to MediaWiki namespace. None of that is required to keep the tools. You can spend years doing nothing but fixing typos in non-contentious-topic articles, and keep the tools. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't a debacle and there's no need to change anything, other than perhaps acceptance of the fact that much of the community wants a low hard limit on inactivity but considers trivial edits to meet the minimum as gaming. Flexibility is a good thing, not a bad thing. Even if activity requirements were hypothetically increased, the case of an admin making sandbox edits up to the new limit to evade it is still gaming the system, so this would only catch an actually-active but low edit count for some reason admin (e.g. an admin who's switched to the tech side or sister projects). SnowFire (talk) 20:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To put it another way: much of the community wants to honour the spirit of WP:INACTIVITY rather than the letter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we know that some of the community want that, but I think it is obvious other parts of the community disagree. Donald Albury 23:54, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Streamlined Good Article → Featured Article Path

Please don't post AI-generated proposals here. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:30, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I propose creating a streamlined path for promoting Good Articles (GAs) to Featured Article (FA) status when they already meet or nearly meet FA criteria.

Currently, the FA nomination process (WP:FAC) is long, intimidating, and often repeats much of the work already done at GA review. Many GAs already meet the majority of FA criteria, but editors are discouraged from nominating them due to the bureaucratic and adversarial nature of FAC.

Key Points of the Proposal

**"Fast-Track FA Review" for GAs**

Create a shortened FA review process for GAs that have been reviewed recently and clearly meet a high standard. The review would focus on fine-tuning rather than repeating all GA checks.

**Reuse GA Review Assessments**

Allow GA reviews to serve as part of the evidence for FA criteria. FAC reviewers would only confirm that GA standards still hold, rather than starting from scratch.

**Encourage Collaborative Upgrades**

WikiProjects could "adopt" existing GAs and work to bring them to FA level with a clearer, less burdensome process.

**Align GA and FA Criteria More Closely**

Consider adjusting GA criteria so that the gap to FA is smaller and less procedural.

Rationale

**Quality over Quantity:** Wikipedia has millions of articles but only a small fraction are FAs (about 0.1%). We should prioritize improving existing content.
**Reduce Bureaucracy:** The current FAC system often discourages nominations for articles that are already close to FA quality.
**Encourage Editors:** A streamlined path would reward editors for improving articles without burning them out on process.
**Better Reader Experience:** More polished and comprehensive articles benefit readers directly.

Questions for the Community

Would you support the creation of a "fast-track" FA process for recently reviewed or high-quality GAs?
Should there be a time limit (e.g., GAs reviewed within the last 12–24 months) for eligibility?
How can we preserve the rigor and prestige of FA while reducing unnecessary duplication?

I welcome thoughts, refinements, or alternatives. Would this help us move toward a true "quality-first" model?

—ExoNeos (talk) 00:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why are there accessibility style guidelines at WikiProject Usability?

Hey, could anyone assist with my question at WikiProject Usability:

Why do they have local web accessibility guidelines, duplicating Manual of Style:Accessibility, etc.: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Usability#What is the distinction from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility?

waddie96 ★ (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[stats-1] Random sampling of 125 articles from tagged population found an average of 2.96 tags per tagged article. Extrapolating across 553,000 articles: 1.63 million total tags (95% confidence interval: 1.18M - 2.09M). Full methodology and code available at https://github.com/Tom94022/wikipedia-fact-tag-analysis

[calc-2] 553,000 tagged articles ÷ ~6.8 million total Wikipedia articles = 8.1% of articles. This contrasts with the commonly cited "1% of pages" figure, which includes non-encyclopedic content across Wikipedia's ~70 million total pages.

[validity-3] Systematic study using Citation Hunt tool: 30 randomly generated citation-needed tags analyzed. Results: 24 citations added with little or no change, 4 added with minor revision, 2 removed as unverifiable. Statistical confidence: 99% probability that at least 80% of existing tags are referenceable (28/30 success rate). See User:Tom94022/sandbox/Fact_Tag_Validity.

[1]

[2]

[3]