Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss already-proposed policies and guidelines and to discuss changes to existing policies and guidelines. Change discussions often start on other pages and then move or get mentioned here for more visibility and broader participation.

If you want to propose something new that is not a policy or guideline, use Village pump (proposals). For drafting with a more focused group, you can also start on the talk page for a WikiProject, Manual of Style, or other relevant project page.
If you have a question about how to apply an existing policy or guideline, try one of the many Wikipedia:Noticeboards.
If you want to ask what the policy is on something, try the Help desk or the Teahouse.
This is not the place to resolve disputes over how a policy should be implemented. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for how to proceed in such cases.
If you want to propose a new or amended speedy deletion criterion, 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 remaining inactive for two weeks.

« Archives, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195

Views on de-orphaning?

What does the community think about systematic efforts to add links to orphaned articles?

Until recently, my impression was de-orphaning can sometimes be beneficial (I did a bit when I was starting to edit) but, in most cases, isn't hugely significant because decent search engines are widespread. Additionally, many orphans cover naturally obscure topics which just aren't going to get many readers or improvements even if they were linked elsewhere.

However, I've been coming across cases where de-orphaning has actually made things worse, generally by giving too much weight to a subject we might not even want to have an article on in the first place. For example, I recently cleaned out a large number of dubiously-notable companies whose establishments were listed as nationally prominent events on pages like 2000 in the United States because of systematic de-orphaning.

It's become increasingly unclear to me whether de-orphaning efforts, as currently practised, are doing more good than harm. But this is based on my impressions, not detailed analysis. So I'm interested to hear others' thoughts.

(A couple of previous discussions: 2017, 2019, there's probably been others). – Teratix ₵ 06:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It probably depends on exactly what is meant by deorphaning. Adding links to relevant articles is good, in that it provides readers a path to find new information. Search cannot help someone find something they don't know they are looking for. The 2017 and 2019 discussions however make a good point that deorphaning as an end in itself is obsolete.

Stepping back slightly, is there more information on what the de-orphaning efforts as currently practised are? The adding of links where they are not beneficial is not great, but how much of it is a problem, and is it a systemic issue or a relatively occasional occurrence? CMD (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with de-orphaning is that it tends to be rather black-and-white. WikiProject Orphanage has the singular objective of reducing the backlog of orphaned articles, which can result in articles that may not meet GNG being given undue weight. Something like the introduction of an 'Orphan-Notability' template, alongside the 'Orphan' template, might help. When de-orphaning a particular article, the option of replacing the 'Orphan' template with 'Orphan-Notability' would create two lists: one for orphaned articles and another for orphaned articles requiring a notability check before they are de-orphaned. Svampesky (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen good things happen from good links. If an article has no inbound article links it gets very few page views, and thus very few edits. With meaningful links from other articles it is now being seen by readers interested in related topics, and someone reading an article on one topic is probably just the person to make good edits to a related article they click through to. It's true that low-quality links, like linking to a dubiously notable company in a large city article because the company is based there, tend to lower the quality of the established article. Cluttering it up without adding useful information for readers.

I think if meaningful, good article links can't be created to an article, that's a strong sign that the article subject is not notable. It's not a criteria for deletion of course, just an indication that a topic might not be encyclopedic, if no other encyclopedia articles should even mention it. Here2rewrite (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for I think if meaningful, good article links can't be created to an article, that's a strong sign that the article subject is not notable.. CapitalSasha ~ talk 11:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an "Orphanologist" working on oldest orphan articles (beginning with 2014 backlog articles), I have seen much progress. At one point the backlog was over 120,000 articles and now about 55,000. And millions more of non-orphan articles. Prior to my involvement, the consensus is to make orphan tag "invisible" after two months. My suggestion would be to show all orphan tags. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 13:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It always seems odd to me if an article can't reasonably be linked to other articles. This could of course mean that those other articles are missing rather than that our orphan is not notable. As for whether we use visible or invisible tags, it rather depends on whether we think the task is something we want to invite our readers to do. In its early days, yes I assume most new orphans can easily be linked into the project. After some time it ceases to be a newbie task and it requires a bit more experience of the project - does this link improve the pedia or is it visual clutter? I'm not sure whether two months is the right time and if not whether it should be increased to three or more or reduced to one. But if we were going to change the interval I'd like it done with some data as to the relative ease of deorphaning articles after one, two or three months. Ideally the link should become invisible at the point where deorphaning becomes a task we don't want to promote to newbies. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this odd at all, and being an orphan isn't the end of the world. Of course some articles are crying out to be linked to (creators of new articles are often very poor at looking for links to add). I'm strongly against WP:UNDUE adding the name and a link just for the sake of de-orphaning. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When this was discussed in 2017, I left rather lengthy comment. Although I no longer de-orphan to the same extent that I once did, I still think the tag is valuable as a diagnostic that signals that an article should be looked at. As I said back then, I have found plenty of instances where investigating why something is tagged as orphaned has helped me improve Wikipedia - merging duplicate articles, upmerging stubs to parent articles, creating new articles in a taxonomic chain, fixing broken links, and initiating the deletion of junk that no one has laid eyes on in years.
Issues can arise when people focus more on the idea of removing the tag at all costs rather than figuring out what to do with the article, but that can happen with any maintenance backlog. Think of someone who mass-redirects unsourced articles rather than improving sourcing. Is the problem the tag, or the behavior? Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater if we can solve the crap-links problem by dealing with whoever is doing it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Even if someone deorphans by mechanically adding a See also link to a more prominent article, the watchers of that more prominent article will then be alerted to the lesser article and it then has an opportunity to be improved. ~Kvng (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As is often the case when editing WP, de-orphaning requires a degree of editorial judgement. The problems almost always occur when people edit without discernment - adding links just for the sake of linking. The reality is that some de-orphaning links are very beneficial, while others are not. Blueboar (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy/guideline is actually already there:

It may be the case that some articles currently just cannot be de-orphaned. If this is the case then please do not try to 'force-fit' by adding unrelated links to articles where they don't belong just for the sake of de-orphaning. Always keep in mind that our primary goal is to improve the reader's experience, not satisfy the editor's indulgence in statistical achievements. Your priority when adding links should be to maintain article quality by adding relevant and useful links wherever possible
— WP:CANTDEORPHAN

So, unnecessary links can always be removed. But it's not always bad, and the inclusion or non-inclusion criteria of certain articles in general articles such as "X year" may not be straightforward; what "degree" of notability (if a person has an article on Wikipedia that person is already notable) a person has to have to be included in "Births"?

Companies can be included in some lists by location or something else. What to put in "See also" is also covered by a guideline.

But do some articles even need to exist? I somewhat agree with other users regarding the (probable) lack of notability (though it may require changes in some notability policies). The other important thing here is the size of the article. Members of the state legislatures are presumed notable, but what if the fact that a person was a member is almost the only thing we know about them? Example. Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. But for some very small streams, this "information beyond" is the etymology and what bodies of water they flow into (sometimes another small stream). Example, Example. The same doubts arise regarding small unidentified villages (that may not even exist), very small neighbourhoods or just "areas".

There are also a lot of articles about New Zealand court decisions, but that's a separate story.

Finally, there are some interesting guidelines about orphans: Editors may also remove the tag from any article if they believe that de-orphaning is unlikely to be successful, or if they have attempted to provide incoming links -//- However, if you are certain the article is unlikely to ever be de-orphaned then simply remove the tag. Can this also be the answer sometimes? It can also be elaborated. For example, after some time and/or a number of attempts an article may be declared "hopeless" and the tag may be removed.

The reality is that some de-orphaning links are very beneficial, while others are not. A lot of those that "are not" are not harmful either. Oloddin (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a new section on your first question below, as it extends beyond the question of deorphaning. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go a bit deeper here. So far, a fair few editors have said something along the lines of "well, sometimes de-orphaning is beneficial and sometimes not", with varying emphasis on "sometimes beneficial" and "sometimes not". But what proportion of de-orphaning, in practice, is beneficial? Is it 90% beneficial, 10% not so much? 70–30? 40–60? 20–80? And where is the threshold for "this benefits Wikipedia on net"? – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To go a bit broader, I would estimate that 90% of good-faith edits are beneficial. The deorphaning edits I have reviewed have about the same level of quality as the other edits I review on my watchlist. ~Kvng (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"De-orphaning" is not some special process; it's simply connecting an orphan with the other articles by creating links to the orphan. This is beneficial unless these links don't fit into the articles where an editor is trying to put them in. It's hard to estimate how often that happens (not least because, again, whether the link belongs or not is often subjective), but I would say not too often (I agree with Kvng on that). In general, the appropriateness of a link, of some text that includes a link, or of the element in the list (or list-type article) is not dependent on whether it was an attempt to de-orphan or not. Oloddin (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Teratix, I suspect that the benefit depends on the subject. De-orphaning a sports or film actor bio probably has a ≥90% benefit: the athlete should be named in some list of the people on their notable team(s), and the actor should be named in the articles about the films they appeared in. De-orphaning a business probably has a 10% benefit. You might occasionally want a sentence like "Bob's Big Business has been the biggest employer in Smallville since 2005", but there are currently about 15,000 places to eat in London, and even if only 0.5% of them are notable, London#Leisure and entertainment doesn't need 75 restaurants named in it. It doesn't even need all six of its Michelin 3-star restaurants listed. However, when something like List of award-winning pubs in London is available, then that's an opportunity to de-orphan these pubs without unbalancing London. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to inform temp users of expiry

Crossposted (per request) from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Bot_to_inform_temp_users_of_expiry. Leaderboard (talk) 14:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First-person pronouns in the Manual of Style

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#We and first-person pronouns about when the word we should be used in an article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We thank yous. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the policy for maintaining access to Wikipedia's library?

It took me six months of steady editing to gain access to the library and for months now, I haven't been able to clip articles at Newspapers.com because I access it through an Ancestry account. Needless to say, this has slowed my editing significantly. How many edits do I have to complete in what sort of timeframe to maintain access? Not being able to clip articles for citations for so long has really sapped my enthusiam but I don't want to lose access to the library after working to gain it in the first place. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the TWL about page:

Any editor can use the library if they meet a few basic requirements:
You have an account that is a minimum of 6 months old
You have made a minimum of 500 edits to Wikimedia projects
You have made at least 10 edits to Wikimedia projects in the last month
You are not currently blocked from editing a Wikimedia project

Here's the TWL contact page and the Meta talk page if you're having technical issues. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there are known issues with Newspapers.com through TWL right now, not sure what the status on fixing them is though. ― novov (t c) 01:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Send newspapers.com an email. That’s worked for me twice. Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, newspapers.com often (and currently is) has technical issues with Wikipedia Library. Recently I needed to follow the steps in phabricator T322916 (direct link to comment with steps) to basically copy an authenticated session from https://www.newspapers.com/ to https://www-newspapers-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/, which is where a session needs to be in order to clip content using TWL's access. It's annoying and intermittent but at least it's (likely) has nothing to do with your access or account. Skynxnex (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a compilation of Wikipedia policies

I took long hours to condense core content policies into one document. By my calculations, I can retain at least 95% of the meaning of the policies, including most of their intricacies and details, by using only about a third of space that the policies and guidelines, scattered among multiple pages, now take (I estimated from raw text that the policies and guidelines I summarised have about 530 KB of raw text but under the compilation have just 173 KB - still a lot but much better).

It was a hard task and appears about as hard as working in one person to recompile the Constitution of Alabama - a ridiculously long document running at 373K words - 420K words before 2022 (for comparison, War and Peace is 587K words, and there's a good reason they publish it in volumes), but I think it is more than worth it, as people will have a unified set of policies that will be easier to read for people because there's gonna be much less of that but reflecting the same meaning. The overabundance of policies is one reason we have few new editors - there are too many rules, and then folks just randomly throw WP or MOS shortcuts not immediately obvious to the bystander, and suddenly nobody wants to join a project with United States Code-long rules and obscure jargon.

I will appreciate all feedback from you - positive or negative - and preferably some help into condensing further policies and guidelines, such as those about conduct, legal, editing etc. into one page where everything belongs.

Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you well in your endeavour, but am worried that it will fail in the end because everyone thinks that "their" sub-sub-clause is vitally important. I admit that I rarely look at policies or guidelines now, but find a few basic ideas, along with common sense, to work. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me as well (I normally look into the rules on an ad hoc basis), but then you wouldn't need all those volumes of tiny rules covering, like, 99% of cases, and yet here we are. Also, admins themselves need a clear set of rules for proper enforcement (even if you catch the gist that the persob is just NOTHERE - an essay btw - you still kinda need a more concrete reason that just "that's my hunch")

It's like with RL: pretty common-sense that you shouldn't kill or rob anyone, or what appears common-sense like not using the army or the government to finance/securre your own reelection campaign, and yet these are codified lest anyone have an idea to bend the rules. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This exists WP:Nutshell and I think your effort is noble but better focused on improving accessible language and navigation of existing guidelines for newcomers. Twinkle has feature to welcome new users for example. WP:Mentor finds ways to automate assisting newbies. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to pick one example. There's no policy that an article must have (any) sources, let alone one. Yet we consistently advise new users to create articles with multiple sources. Save the edge cases and careful readings of guidelines/policies for advanced users who want to push the margins or change consensus. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there very much are two policies that prohibit articles without sources:

Verifiability says that you should only add content that you can check against a reliable source, and that you can remove any unsourced content
No original research says you just can't make stuff up. The only way you can have some sort of content is if it can be supported by a reliable source. Technically just have to demonstrate that the source for the passage is somewhere but if you don't provide it in the article, you can totally expect it to be removed and it's gonna be your problem.

So yeah, it isn't said directly, but policy actually prohibits unsourced articles (and I didn't even go to the guidelines) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, policy prohibits unverifiable articles, not unsourced articles. Sources are required for BLPs and anything that is likely to be challenged should include a source (but this doesn't have to be inline). An article List of uncontroversial statements of fact consisting of things like "The sky is blue", "Many people are Catholics", "The 1970s happened before the 1980s", etc could be completely fine (it would be deleted, but for reasons completely unrelated to not having sources). Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm not making this up:

Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[b] the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source

Which de facto means that if you are adding unsourced content, you are wasting your time as any editor may come by and just remove what you wrote, tell you "lacks an inline citation, I don't care why, pics or it didn't happen" and you are gonna still default to having to add a source (and then again giving time to fix it is a courtesy you needn't, though probably should, extend; though if you have the means to fix it yourself, you should do it)

So there's no obligation to source an article only in the most literal reading of policies. Anyone can enforce this policy provision. WP:SKYISBLUE is just an essay, although one with a pretty large following (and which totally makes sense for me, which is why there is a footnote to that effect) Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... any editor may come by and just remove what you wrote ...: the operative word is may. The reality is there's loads of unsourced text on WP, much of which will take years for it to be challenged, if ever. —Bagumba (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki, I think you might be interested in reading Wikipedia:Glossary#uncited and related entries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been tried before. Take a look at Wikipedia:Attribution, an attempt 18 years ago to consolidate some policies. Some very active and well regarded Wikipedians put a lot of time and effort into that proposal, but it was rejected by the community. Consensus can change, but I suspect the community remains just as resistant to change as it was then. Donald Albury 20:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I did read the poll, and a lot of stuff that was probably relevant here doesn't apply:

Users were complaining about lack of participation/that proposal being forced down their throats as policy - not an issue here (yet)
Merger of NOR, V, RS didn't appeal to people - not abolishing them, just giving sections to these concepts, not a problem.
Users complained about one massive page, or that they preferred separate policies rather than a massive policy code - well that is an issue to discuss but again it's not something that should extinguish all debate before it even starts.
Disgusted that truth is deprioritised - kinda not applicable here, because I'm not changing the framing of policy, just condensing it.
Change is unnecessary - again, debatable but let's have that debate in the first place
WP-links - well, you will have them all you like. Again, something to be discussed.
Assessment of any changes and their impact on disputes - to be discussed, again. This is how rulemaking process should work.
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it" - my whole point is that it is, in fact, broke, so needs fixing.

And again, you can say "meh, we tried eons ago and it didn't work, why bother anymore" but that's gonna be a catch-22, because nothing will change without discussion, which you don't want to hold anyway.

I believe the attitude should be "OK, let's see what you did there and if it makes any sense". It would be another thing if you told me why what I did was bullshit, which is fine. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI in addition to WP:Nutshell and WP:Attribution mentioned above, there's also WP:SIMPLE, HELP:GUIDE, and other variations listed at WP:Principles. Levivich (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but that's not the point of the compilation. What you are pointing to has a different purpose.

Nutshell, WP:5P etc. is a post hoc summary of policies and guidelines that summarise the main goals in slogans. Just like a company saying "we want to increase the market share; we want good treatment of workers" but not saying how.

WP:SIMPLE is a very high-level summary of policies and guidelines. It's the company analogue of saying: Good treatment of workers means paying more than the minimum wage, giving them extra breaks, paid leave and some other perks, without telling much specifics.

The body of the policies and guidelines is like all internal company directives about pay grades, conditions of getting worker benefits, levels of compensation, powers of HR/executives etc. This page intends to clean up all this body of policies and codify them in a couple of places, grouped by category, so that we remove unnecessary bloat, as in too many redundancies and passages repeated across different policy pages, extraneous comments etc.

We should have all of these and I don't have an issue with the first two, they are mostly fine. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki, I don't feel like you're hearing what people are telling you, so l'm going to try a completely different, un-Wikipedian way of explaining this, because the previous efforts haven't worked, and maybe this will get your attention. Here's my new way:

Hi, Szmenderowiecki, and welcome to Wikipedia! I see you've been editing for just four and a half years, and that you've made a few hundred edits at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which I really appreciate. I don't know if you knew this, but you're in the top half a percent of contributors for all time. I also notice that you've never edited a single policy, and you have only made one small, uncontroversial edit to a guideline.

Just so you know, most of the people who have responded to you in this discussion have been editing for 15 to 20 years, and have made between 50,000 and 170,000 edits. Also, relevantly, we've been much more active in developing Wikipedia's policy and guideline ecosystem. If you'd like to see an incomplete overview of my own policy-related work, then you can start at User:WhatamIdoing#Policies and guidelines you can ask me about.

Now that you understand who's at the table for this discussion, I want to point out that there is an English saying that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Every person in this discussion has more experience than you, and every single one of them thinks that, even though your goal is laudable and praiseworthy and at least partially shared by everyone here, your approach is not likely to be successful. It is, of course, possible that you know better than any of us and that rushing ahead is a great idea, but I suggest to you that it is unlikely that all of us are wrong in urging caution and small steps.

If you think you could slow down and get some more experience, and if you're willing to consider doing this over the space of years, then I think we could help set you up for success. For example, if we implemented this idea, that would get about 300 words out of a policy. The next step is to write a good RFC question. If you're interested in this, you could get some practical experience by helping out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]