Jump to content

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:PROPOSE" redirects here. For proposing article deletion, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion requests.
 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 
Shortcuts

The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.

Ethiopic fonts

[edit]

Could we add "Abyssinica SIL" to the list of display fonts for Ethiopic script? The supplemental blocks display as tofu for me despite me having a supporting font installed. The only one I can see is Extended-B, which is the one not supported by Noto. (And I do have Noto installed.)

For comparison, wikt:Appendix:Unicode/Ethiopic Extended etc. display in Abyssinica SIL on my browser.

(Abyssinica is free and covers all 5 Ethiopic blocks.) — kwami (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to link to the page where you experienced a problem. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 03:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the tables in Geʽez_script#Unicode and the pages they link to, e.g. Ethiopic Extended.
The table for Ethiopic Extended-B displays correctly. Ethiopic (Unicode block) is mostly good, but has a bit of tofu scattered in it, e.g. for ሇ. Note that the tofu in the basic block is covered by Noto, as are the extended blocks up to Extended-A, so it almost seems as if Noto is the problem: Both the characters that are not handled by Noto (Extended-B), and those that are handled by more limited system fonts (most of the basic Ethiopic block), display correctly. The ones where Noto might kick in (I'm guessing) display as tofu. But they display fine if I set them to Noto in a text doc. — kwami (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, most of these are working for me even though I don't recall installing special Ethiopic fonts. The exception is Ethiopic Extended-B, which for me is a sea of tofu with no characters displaying. Double sharp (talk) 08:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same goes for me Ca talk to me! 04:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Page: Snakes Of Egypt

[edit]
Resolved

I have to find the snake endemic to Egypt for a project, but there doesn't seem to be one? Can someone kindly add it? Btw not a problem anymore no one needs to reply to this. Irindu10 (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages aren't generally proposed, they're just created (i.e. someone could start editing Snakes of Egypt at any time). This isn't likely to happen on a timescale that would be useful to your assignment, and would probably defeat the purpose of the assignment. I'd recommend you try searching for "snakes" "Egypt" on Google Books and seeing what comes up there. If you find anything substantial, maybe you could start the article yourself. signed, Rosguill talk 16:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Irindu10 If you want, you can take a look at other pre-existing pages listed at Lists of snakes to see how they are structured, as well as the template {{Species table}} for a fancier look. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Irindu10 (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Irindu10, you can also ask questions about real-world facts (not really about how to edit Wikipedia) at the Wikipedia:Reference desk.
To get you started, you might look into Indotyphlops braminus ("Common Blind Snake", which is a very small snake [a third the length of the common earthworm] that gets its common name from tiny eyes that can realistically see only light/dark) and Walterinnesia aegyptia ("Egyptian Black Cobra"). If your project is literary in nature, then Cerastes vipera is often given as Cleopatra's asp. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has never been a Category:Snakes of Egypt under Category:Snakes by country, and Category:Reptiles of Egypt was upmerged in 2020 into Category:Reptiles of North Africa, although a list article still exists at List of reptiles of Egypt, consisting entirely of unannotated links, including section headings. Folly Mox (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Sri Lankan Election 2024 page

[edit]

Could someone edit this page to show that AKD won. Idk how to edit elections Irindu10 (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it has already been done. In the future, it is better to ask this on the article's talk page (here, Talk:2024 Sri Lankan presidential election), as it is more likely to be seen by editors more knowledgeable on this specific topic. This page here is for more wide-ranging proposals, rather than to request specific edits. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for check user is meant to be for request for permission

[edit]

OK 132.147.192.240 (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser is inactive, and has been replaced by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Also, while the names might be confusing, it isn't a request for permission, as it wasn't to request to become CheckUser, but rather to request assistance from a CheckUser in a specific situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requests for checkuser access are handled by the Arbitration Committee, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight for details. It's worth noting here though that it is one of the most restricted rights on the project (for good reason) and cannot (by both policy and technical restriction) be granted to IP editors. Thryduulf (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rethink the extended confirmed right?

[edit]

I originally posted this on WP:VPT but got sent here by Izno. My original message was: Either have a user right that is given only to trusted people without any additional rights attached to it (and with a matching level of protection) or make extended confirmed be given manually. There are too many people gaming the system to be hateful pricks on editors' user pages or to push a POV on CTOPs. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is barely a proposal at this point. But it is a bad idea, so rather than suggest a further run-around I will explain why here.
I don't believe there is a problem that people are making 500 non-trivial and non-vandal edits just to be "hateful pricks" on talk pages. But, if they are, that seems like a largely-acceptable tradeoff; they can be easily blocked and everybody can move on.
As far as the existence of people pushing a POV on contentious topics; that will never ever stop no matter what the requirement is (at least as long as this is "The Encyclopedia Anyone Can Edit"). Whatever idea you have for "trusted" will also be gamed. It will not help. 500 edits is already a lot (outside of bots and gaming-the-system). And the various "ANI/ArbCom are understaffed" discussions demonstrate that a surplus of volunteers is not a luxury we can assume when designing policies. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On top of the issue of it adding a new massive backlog, I'll quote Goodhart's law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". Even if it is only given to trusted users, the users who will care the most about asking for the user right might not be the users that we would want the most, and edits on non-contentious topics won't give a perfect idea of the behavior they might have in more contentious environments. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is still not the right forum (and Izno did not explicitly send you here). Please note the header that clearly states This page is for concrete, actionable proposals. Consider developing earlier-stage proposals at Village pump (idea lab). Sdkb talk 07:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But since the discussion has already been moved once, we might as well stick with it here. The downside to choosing VPPR over VPIL, of course, is that we can all weight in with "* Oppose" votes instead of at least pretending to explore the idea.
On the subject matter, I sometimes think we should reduce the 500+30 down to 300+30. There's little statistical difference between 300 and 500 edits; people who make 300 will usually manage the second (whereas people who manage one or two edits usually don't manage 10).
I have seen a small number of editors claim that unnamed[*] others are gaming the system. I have personally seen no convincing evidence of this. Additionally, having fewer folks involved in an ever-greater number of articles violates the principle that "many hands make light work". Something we don't need is a greater percentage of skilled wikilawyers, which is what a manual system will give us.
Something we do need is people with enough self-awareness to realize that, even if we stipulate that my own views are always correct, etc., if I'm running into constant POV pushing around a subject, that could be a sign that the articles are not complying with WP:YESPOV. YESPOV means that the articles need to acknowledge the existence of significant differences in opinions, including in CTOP articles. To name a few of these POVs, consider "some people think abortion shouldn't be described as 'safe' because the baby dies" or "some people think that Israel is perpetrating genocide" or "some people think Donald Trump was the greatest president ever" or "some people think that private citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns" or "some people fear demographic changes in their society" or "some people think it was unfair to restrict liberty during COVID-19 pandemic just to prevent the virus from spreading". You don't have to agree with any of these to realize that these comments and edits are feedback on how well an article meets people's actual needs. Donald Trump should acknowledge why his supporters think he's great, even though I don't agree with them. Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic should acknowledge that some people (e.g., lip readers) were harmed by mask use. Writing a decent article that respectfully describes and (when appropriate and WP:DUE) explains the flaws or limitations in these viewpoints really can help, occasionally dramatically. Forcing one POV out of the article, or treating it in a derogatory fashion, is going to produce a steady stream of complaints and attempts to "fix" the perceived problem.
[*] This is not a suggestion to name/shame any individual editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gaming definitely happens (obvious example), but maybe you mean more that it's not happening as much as is often suggested. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "I have seen a small number of editors claim that unnamed[*] others are gaming the system. I have personally seen no convincing evidence of this."...not that it makes any difference, but gaming the system is not unusual for people trying to tunnel through the EC barrier into the WP:PIA topic area, and Wikipedia kindly provides several tools to help them. This is probably the most impressive example I've seen, but there are plenty of other examples. The topic area is apparently rather good at attracting new editors and people pretending to be new editors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "if I'm running into constant POV pushing around a subject, that could be a sign that the articles are not complying with WP:YESPOV", while this is possible hypothetically in a world of rational rule-based agents, in PIA the arrival of large numbers of new users and the amount of POV pushing can often be connected to influence operations on social media and partisan media coverage. It is apparently extremely easy to manipulate people and send them to Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gaming of the extended confirmed restriction is extremely common. It's easy enough to find straightforward examples just by searching the ANI archives, where they usually get reported, and the AN archives, where people often go to request it back when an administrator removes it; often this results in EC being revoked or the user being blocked as a sock (remember, slowing down socks is part of the purpose of EC protection.) Most recently the PIA topic area has produced a lot of it, since the recent conflict has attracted a lot of new editors with strong POVs who are eager to "fix" what they see as problems in its articles, and since it has attracted rampant socking; but it's a universal issue that occurs whenever an EC topic area attracts attention. --Aquillion (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably worth mentioning that while "slowing down socks" is certainly one of the objectives of EC, for the PIA topic area at least where ECR was introduced on 2019-12-20, it does not appear to have had a significant impact in terms of revision counts by identified socks. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The overwhelming majority of ECP articles are per arbcom remedies - if we just decide to weaken ECP threshold what I think is going to happen is: arbcom will just change their remedy again (creating another sweeping broken problem that causes all admins to try to scramble around to enforce it). Now, do we really need all these pages so protected -- good question that could be asked to candidates running for arbcom this year! — xaosflux Talk 14:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly for ARBPIA, in practice, the vast majority of articles covered by ECR are not EC protected. Enforcement is carried out by people and is quite expensive. As far as I can tell, answers to the question "do we really need all these pages so protected" appear to largely depend on the extent to which editors are grounded in the day-to-day reality of a topic area. The more time they spend active in the topic area dealing with non-EC edits/editors, the more likely they are to regard the restrictions as necessary/helpful etc. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is confusing, "only to trusted people without any additional rights attached to it (and with a matching level of protection)"- if they have no permissions, then what is the point of yet another protection level? — xaosflux Talk 14:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=1248987387"