Policy | Technical | Proposals | Idea lab | Miscellaneous |
The idea lab section of the village pump is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Wikipedia issues can be incubated, for later submission for consensus discussion at Village pump (proposals). Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas. Before creating a new section, please note:
Before commenting, note:
|
« Older discussions, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 |
Contents
- 1 Reduce RfC default from 30 days to 21
- 2 Visibility of AFD discussions
- 3 Pending changes admin bot
- 4 Simplyfying translations
- 5 Nowiki button
- 6 Proposing Idea for military history-related infobox template
- 7 Bot for author removal of CSD tags
- 8 Changing google.xxx links to google.com
- 9 Notability tag
- 10 Proposing another protection level
- 11 Ping Users
Reduce RfC default from 30 days to 21
Wanted to test the water on this. It seems to me that, generally, discussion and !voting slow to very little to nothing after about 3 weeks, so why not put the RfC to bed and move on? If there is any activity in that last 9 days, it's almost invariably "me too" !voting rather than any new arguments. It would still be only a default, and could be made longer when needed. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it matters. Policy at WP:RFC already states "Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." I.e. you're encouraged to ignore the 30 day rule as needed. If we're looking for general guidance, 21 days is a nice number; I'd also suggest adding "21 days or 7 days since the last substantive contribution, whichever seems more appropriate" --Jayron32 12:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: It does, because {{rfc}} is automatically removed by a bot 30 days after the first edit in its talk page section. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 12:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC) - I'm fairly sure that it does matter. Default is what happens if there is no discussion and agreement to do something different. Most people don't want to bother with that, so they just let it run the 30-day course. Which is not to say that they wouldn't prefer it to close at 21. My proposal, if any, would be to change the bot's action to 21 days. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- If it changes bot behavior, that's fine too. I still think the guidance of "...or 7 days since the last substantive contribution, whichever seems more appropriate" is necessary also. We don't want people closing a discussion at exactly 21 days if discussion is useful and active, and we don't want people requiring a discussion to stay open to 21 days if no one commented at all after the second day. --Jayron32 13:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: Actually, given the "7 days" suggestion, maybe the bot could just wait until a week after the last comment. The discussion could always be closed manually before then. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 13:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)- "The bot" is Legobot (talk · contribs), so Legoktm (talk · contribs) would need to be involved. It's also not "30 days after the first edit in its talk page section": Legobot looks for the
{{rfc}}
template, and looks from that point to the very next timestamp - and it's 30 days from that. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)- I think that we should say "30 days, or 7 days since the last substantive contribution, whichever seems more appropriate" - i.e allowing a close for an RfC if there are no more relevant additions, but requiring keeping it open the full month if discussion is still on-going. I see no reason to shorten the 30 days unless discusison ha, in fact, ended. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- What is a substantive contribution, and who decides that? Can a bot decide that? How do you know when discussion has ended? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Who decides? The same as everything everywhere on Wikipedia. Any uninvolved, experienced editor in good standing may use proper judgement to do so. --Jayron32 01:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- That wouldn't change what happens when people do nothing, which will continue to be the case more often than not. So I wouldn't support it, but I could make it an option in a proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Since the bot exists (at all) because people so frequently did nothing, then this factor needs to be considered carefully.
- If you wanted to take an intermediate approach, then perhaps stalled RFC discussions could get a note that reminds editors to remove the tag if they're done (and to add it to WP:ANRFC if they want a closing summary written by a fellow editor, or to remove it from ANRFC if someone else listed it and they think a closing statement would be a waste of a volunteer's time). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- That wouldn't change what happens when people do nothing, which will continue to be the case more often than not. So I wouldn't support it, but I could make it an option in a proposal. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Who decides? The same as everything everywhere on Wikipedia. Any uninvolved, experienced editor in good standing may use proper judgement to do so. --Jayron32 01:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- What is a substantive contribution, and who decides that? Can a bot decide that? How do you know when discussion has ended? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think that we should say "30 days, or 7 days since the last substantive contribution, whichever seems more appropriate" - i.e allowing a close for an RfC if there are no more relevant additions, but requiring keeping it open the full month if discussion is still on-going. I see no reason to shorten the 30 days unless discusison ha, in fact, ended. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:49, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- "The bot" is Legobot (talk · contribs), so Legoktm (talk · contribs) would need to be involved. It's also not "30 days after the first edit in its talk page section": Legobot looks for the
- @Jayron32: Actually, given the "7 days" suggestion, maybe the bot could just wait until a week after the last comment. The discussion could always be closed manually before then. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
- If it changes bot behavior, that's fine too. I still think the guidance of "...or 7 days since the last substantive contribution, whichever seems more appropriate" is necessary also. We don't want people closing a discussion at exactly 21 days if discussion is useful and active, and we don't want people requiring a discussion to stay open to 21 days if no one commented at all after the second day. --Jayron32 13:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jayron32: It does, because {{rfc}} is automatically removed by a bot 30 days after the first edit in its talk page section. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Contrary to my previous comment, after further thought I wouldn't take anything but my opening suggestion to VPR. I don't see justification for making things more complex. As it stands now, I tested the water and it wasn't very warm. Obviously this does not preclude someone else from taking something else to VPR. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Visibility of AFD discussions
It is not uncommon for someone to write to OTRS and requests deletion of the AFD discussion. I have generally rejected such requests, on the argument that our goal of transparency requires that we keep a record of our deletion discussions. However, there may be valid reasons for rethinking this position. I'm not wavering on whether we need to keep a record of our deletion discussion, but I think it is worth discussing how public this record needs to be.
Please keep in mind that many deletion discussions include comments about notability. While regular editors know exactly what "notability" means in the context of Wikipedia articles, our term is not exactly in line with the ordinary English use of the term. For example, there are actors with multiple roles, authors with multiple books, and academics with multiple published papers who do not pass our hurdle. While we understand this, a discussion throwing around terms like "not notable", "solidly non-notable", or similar phrasing comes across very differently to the subject and to non-editors who might stumble across the page as a result of a search. Given the prominence of Wikipedia articles and searches, it is not uncommon that the deletion discussion will be included in many searches.
In some cases, the subject's main objection isn't that the editors chose to delete the article, the concern is that the wording used in the deletion discussion reflects negatively upon them and they aren't happy about that.
I wonder if it would be technically possible to make it so that deletion discussions were only readable by registered editor's, or perhaps some other class of editors. Obviously, straight out deletion would make it readable by admin's only, which is an option but I wouldn't mind a restriction that's not quite that severe a restriction. Of course, one aspect is the technical ability, and the second and more important discussion is whether the community would support limiting the visibility of AFD discussions either in general or upon request.
I have deliberately posted this in the idea thread rather than the proposal thread because although I have some specific thoughts about a proposal I can think of multiple approaches and I thought it would be useful to have a general discussion before codifying into a specific proposal.
What do others think?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Are the complaints about active discussions or about completed ones? For the latter, there is {{afd-privacy}}-based courtesy blanking. For the former, maybe cutting back on the overuse of "vanity" and synonyms in deletion discussions could help, that word is seldom an useful formulation anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have seen requests related to both, but the recent particular interest (not linked for obvious reasons) is a completed one. I confess I was unaware of that template, and may use it in the present case, but I hope the general discussion will continue.
-
- As for your specific thoughts about language used in such discussions, I totally concur but I didn't emphasize that point because I think in the heat of trying to deal with all the issues associated with whether an article should be deleted, it is asking a lot to ask all participants to think about everyone who might read it at any time. I wouldn't be unhappy if people contributing to such a discussion That thought in mind, but if they were not and were brutally honest about the thoughts, I don't want to be in the position of post editing cleanup because there is far too much to do to start doing that except in egregious situations.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's currently not possible to restrict tvviewing thewse pages, except through admin-level deletion (which we won't do for obvious reasons). Feel free to mae a request at the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey, although I doubt that there will be much support for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Aye, and and it's unlikely that developers will implement such a thing as it is unfeasible in MediaWiki software, it isn't designed to do per-page read protection. Any process to decide which biographies can stay and which have to go will generate some ill-feeling among the subjects especially when the particular discussion goes against their own preference. So blanking out problematic AfDs after they close and moderate the language used by participants in active AfDs are the only ways to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Given the technical hurdles, which were more onerous than I would have guessed, and more importantly, and acceptable workaround, I'll not pursue this any further. Thanks JoJo for the template which I have added to my toolkit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Aye, and and it's unlikely that developers will implement such a thing as it is unfeasible in MediaWiki software, it isn't designed to do per-page read protection. Any process to decide which biographies can stay and which have to go will generate some ill-feeling among the subjects especially when the particular discussion goes against their own preference. So blanking out problematic AfDs after they close and moderate the language used by participants in active AfDs are the only ways to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's currently not possible to restrict tvviewing thewse pages, except through admin-level deletion (which we won't do for obvious reasons). Feel free to mae a request at the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey, although I doubt that there will be much support for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- As for your specific thoughts about language used in such discussions, I totally concur but I didn't emphasize that point because I think in the heat of trying to deal with all the issues associated with whether an article should be deleted, it is asking a lot to ask all participants to think about everyone who might read it at any time. I wouldn't be unhappy if people contributing to such a discussion That thought in mind, but if they were not and were brutally honest about the thoughts, I don't want to be in the position of post editing cleanup because there is far too much to do to start doing that except in egregious situations.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Pending changes admin bot
- 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.
Basically a bot with admin powers coded to, if it detects that two to more users have rollbacked each other (the both role backing would be a good way to not have a problem where a user continually rolebacks vandals, and it's protected, (although that is another idea)), it will apply pending changes two protection to it. Thoughts? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how often two editors use rollback on each other or whether that is the best response. What makes you think it is a common enough phenomenon to merit a bot and also that the appropriate solution is to apply PC2? Can you give some diffs showing incidents involving this in the last few days? ϢereSpielChequers 19:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Its usually on contriversial or highly viewed pages like Donald Trump see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=74862999, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=748629336, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=748630267, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=748630154 ,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=748629994, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=748629681, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=748629336. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, not a single one of the diffs above is a rollback. Are you just talking about general edit-warring? If that's the case I unequivocally oppose this proposal since it would create a means for anyone to get a page bot-locked into their preferred version by reverting a couple of minor edits. ‑ Iridescent 19:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Almost all of them are rollbacks or reverts. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- At no point have you mentioned reversion; your proposal is explicitly about rollback. A bot capable of monitoring every Wikipedia page in real-time for reversions would take the computing power of a decent-sized corporation, since it would need to be constantly downloading every change and comparing it to the two previous versions. ‑ Iridescent 19:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Almost all of them are rollbacks or reverts. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, not a single one of the diffs above is a rollback. Are you just talking about general edit-warring? If that's the case I unequivocally oppose this proposal since it would create a means for anyone to get a page bot-locked into their preferred version by reverting a couple of minor edits. ‑ Iridescent 19:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Its usually on contriversial or highly viewed pages like Donald Trump see: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=74862999, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=748629336, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=748630267, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=748630154 ,https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=748629994, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=748629681, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=748629336. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Simplyfying translations
Hi, I have several articles (most in Polish wikipedia) that could be translated into English wikipedia. In my (small, but sufficient) experience I see that 70% work related to translation is to work out hyperlinks and bibliography. This work seems extremely well-suited for some sort of script. For exmaple if I have a link in Polish wikipedia say to a "bazalt" then I have to click it, see it suggests en.wikipedia.org basalts and then link in the translated content to the basalt. This is something that a script should do - often there are tens of links in good-quality articles. And verifying links is much less work than actually manually figuring out that "wapienie" (PL) is "Limestone" (EN). The same could be said about citations: Polish and English wikipedia use different syntax for references, but it is similar enough that some sort of automatic translation should be possible. Are tools like that available? I am looking for two tools in the end:
- automatic translation of links from one wikipedia to other wikipedia
- automatic translation of ref commands.
--Azzifeldman (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Nowiki button
How useful would a button that visually changed all of the wikimarkup to nowiki format, i.e. you could see the bare code. Obviously it wouldn't change the markup itself, just how it was viewed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- In what way would this substantially differ from clicking "edit this page" or the individual section "edit" links? (Or the "display source" link, if I remember the correct wording, when encountering a protected page?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ease of viewing its location within the article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds like something that would make a decent gadget if people had a desire for it :) ^demon[omg plz] 03:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hm, I think the gadget idea might be better. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Iazyges, this sounds like a pretty good idea - how do you think this could work? As an additional thing besides the "edit source" link on each section/the page as a whole, maybe? Enterprisey (talk!) 04:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Enterprisey:, hm I thought it would be to the right of the edit button on the top, as long as to the right or left (depending on if preferences push edit button to far right) of the edit button. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, sure, that works fine too. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Enterprisey:, hm I thought it would be to the right of the edit button on the top, as long as to the right or left (depending on if preferences push edit button to far right) of the edit button. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm wondering if I wanted to propose a infobox template related to the Wikiproject Military Project group, is it better to propose what kind of infobox that I want to do? Ominae (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Ominae: This is probably best discussed at WT:MILHIST, rather than here. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Bot for author removal of CSD tags
Pretty much anyone who's done a good long run of NPP has gone through the dance of:
- CSD tag
- Retag all removed CSD noms on watchlist
- Repeat
Since there is already a Special:Tags category for removal of CSD templates, shouldn't it be too easy to make a bot that:
- Checks all edits with these tags
- Checks whether the person making the edit was the original page creator
- Checks whether the edit was a page blank
- Reverts the removal if 1 and 2 are true but 3 is false, and leave escalating {{uw-speedy}} templates on the user talk
- Tag the page with {{Db-blanked}} if 1, 2, and 3 are all true
Seems like this should be easy to implement and would save a bit of time. TimothyJosephWood 17:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Changing google.xxx links to google.com
Hello all, there have been two recent bot tasks where updating google domains from http to https have been undertaken (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mdann52 bot 11 and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Bender the Bot 2). Changing this from http to https received prior support; and changing the link parameter from the original to English has does not seem to be controversial (?hl=en). A concern I have brought up is in changing the domain names from country specific domain names to the .com domain name - especially for Google Books. The reason I think this is an issue is that Google Books is used as a reference, and the link may provide the reader with a means to obtain the book through retailer matching - however Google will customize this based on the domain name. A generic example would be to send the reader to Amazon.com instead of Amazon.co.uk. In some cases the .com site may offer no retail options, while the site the editor originally provider may. I think we should not have bots change this reference link from what the human editor provided. Any thoughts? — xaosflux Talk 00:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- In my opinion, we should link to the generic
.com
TLD for all Google services. This may sound like a tinfoilish issue, but some TLDs may put our readers under suspicion from ISPs or their nation's SIGINT. Remember even though all of those links are now HTTPS, this does not conceal the IP address of the domain you're connecting to. The British.co.uk
is not so much a concern as is the Israeli.co.il
(for readers in Arab countries) or the Taiwanese.com.tw
(in mainland China). And to be clear, this is not just about Google Books, but any Google service (or actually any website). --bender235 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, we should link to the generic
-
-
- Instead of being sent to the Hungarian, Spanish or German Google book sites, the reader gets results in the language based upon the reader's IP address.
- We aren't here to sell books. With the book info, anybody can find where to buy the book or see if it's at a local library. That being said, going to the Google site where the reader is located only makes it easier to buy books as one is given local options.
- Any restrictions made by the copyright holder is based on the reader's IP address. If the preview is only available in the UK, a US reader can't view the preview no matter what specific country address they try. From Google's API docs, Google Books respects copyright, contract, and other legal restrictions associated with the end user's location. As a result, some users might not be able to access book content from certain countries. For example, certain books are "previewable" only in the United States; we omit such preview links for users in other countries. Therefore, the API results are restricted based on your server or client application's IP address. Bgwhite (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
-
Notability tag
Basically, an editor would tag an article, say, of an artist, with a tag (on talk page) that says "Article is notable under Notability:_____(#______) as of Month Day Year. There would be a special page of articles that's notability tag's guidelines have had an RFC pass, so that people could go through and check if it was still covered under the new notability. Perhaps the tags would also get put on a special page that lists articles that haven't had their notabilities updated in a timespan, say a year, so people could check if it was still notable (for redundancy) and then update it to the new date. Thoughts? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I completely understand you but if I do, notability isn't temporary. Once something is deemed notable it stays that way. No need to reconfirm it. --Majora (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Majora: true, but under that same section, it mentions that articles that are years old can become non-notable if the guidelines change. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Seems interesting-- this tool streamlines the process of checking for notability, right? I have two concerns, but I think they are solvable. One is the problem of scale. There are 5.2 million articles in the English Wikipedia, so that means 5.2 million tags plus redundancies. Second concern is the problem of differing notions of what is notable. Not talking about inclusionist/deletionist debate but rather areas of expertise: physicists might think that one single equation on some kind of industrial coating would merit an article, while the layperson would see that page as a blatant example of scope expansion, and thus remove any notability tag. Seeing as only physicists would really look at that kind of article, it would be notable to physicists, and thus notable because of its application and coverage, but that notability wouldn't be apparent. Maybe WikiProjects would be in charge of tagging the articles within their scope, that way we don't run into that kind of problem? Icebob99 (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Icebob99: Basically it would streamline the process of notability as you said, if it falls under any notability guideline, it would help in cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaz-Bulat Askar-Sarydzha, where the article was notable, even if it didnt appear to be. It should in theory cut down on the number of AFD's, with people checking the talk page to see if it has been labelled as notable. Perhaps there would even be a WP: page for people wishing to challenge the notablity tag. I admit the scale is a problem, however I think with a group of editors willing to help, it can be done, I don't really like the idea of a WP tagging things in there domain, because of the risk of bias in notablity, and how that could flood the potential WP of people challenging tags, but I think initially it may be neccesarry. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- This might be a crazy counter-idea, but rather than having editors tagging talk pages to claim a subject is notable - what about have them write content, including reliable sources that show the subject is notable? Sam Walton (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Samwalton9: I don't think that you understand my proposal at all.
- @Iazyges: you're right, that problem needs to be addressed. I'm trying to think of ways to make this less tedious, though-- some articles would be a gimme on notability, but others would need a bit more of a time commitment. I'm going to guess that at least 3 million articles aren't gimmes, so that would be quite a lot of work. If the inspiration for the concept was reducing the amount of time and energy spent at AfD, that's great, but this method just shifts the work from AfD to a notability tag project, which are essentially the same thing. Since a notability tag decision is like a mini-AfD, seeing as a failure to be notable would result in an AfD page, might as well just keep the debate in AfD. So the status quo would be significantly less work because it only decides notability on a more efficient case-by-case basis rather than a blanket blitz. Now with all that said, I do think there is value in a notability tag, or rather a "non-notability" tag. Consider WP:VPD#Comparing new article names to search volume, where lack of notability is often exposed through search volume. Perhaps a bot could be built that flags for review articles which have an unusually low search volume, since those articles probably wouldn't be notable. Icebob99 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- This might be a crazy counter-idea, but rather than having editors tagging talk pages to claim a subject is notable - what about have them write content, including reliable sources that show the subject is notable? Sam Walton (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Icebob99: Basically it would streamline the process of notability as you said, if it falls under any notability guideline, it would help in cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaz-Bulat Askar-Sarydzha, where the article was notable, even if it didnt appear to be. It should in theory cut down on the number of AFD's, with people checking the talk page to see if it has been labelled as notable. Perhaps there would even be a WP: page for people wishing to challenge the notablity tag. I admit the scale is a problem, however I think with a group of editors willing to help, it can be done, I don't really like the idea of a WP tagging things in there domain, because of the risk of bias in notablity, and how that could flood the potential WP of people challenging tags, but I think initially it may be neccesarry. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- Too much bureaucracy for little gain. Technically, a mechanism exists between AFD, GA/FA processes, and Wikiproject assessments (as I don't think any WProject should be marking an article C class or better if notability is not shown), and I think this bogs things down far too much. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Proposing another protection level
I want to propose another protection level, but the level cannot be higher than Extended Confirmation Protected (ECP). Instead, the level must be between semi-protection and ECP. How many edits and days? --George Ho (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- Can I ask why? What purpose? What need is there for it? What gap in the protection policy would it fill that isn't already filled? ECP was only created by ArbCom as a last resort measure. I don't see why we would need anything else and I really don't see the community supporting anything else at this time. --Majora (talk) 05:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- The discussion about re-establishing the PC2 protection is happening now. Whether or not PC2 passes, another protection level might be needed to make PC2 less necessary. Also, ECP would be less necessary. WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED says that the total EC users amount to nearly 30,000. This is low amount compared to 1.4 million autoconfirmed. Of course, the amount of users with such privilege will increase. --George Ho (talk) 05:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Ping Users
We need some kind of Ping user button. Half the time in a discussion, I have to go through pages upon pages of my contribs to find where I replied on a talk page to see if another person has replied back to me.. and I don't get a notification when they reply to me because they don't use the Ping button. There needs to be some kind of button or easily available way to just hit "Ping" or "reply to user". Or maybe there's an easier way and I am not privy to it. PS please ping me so I see your reply ;) --Jennica✿ talk / contribs 02:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)