Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:38, 23 November 2021

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPI
• WP:VPIL

• Discussions of technical issues belong at Village pump (technical).
• Discussions of policy belong at Village pump (policy).
• If you're ready to make a concrete proposal and determine whether it has consensus, go to the Village pump (proposals). Proposals worked out here can be brought there.

Before commenting, note:

• This page is not for consensus polling. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
• Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through Misplaced Pages:Perennial proposals.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

Refining the rollback right

At present, the rollback user right is predominantly given by administrators to trusted editors (typically counter vandalism patrollers) and allows access to more complex and powerful tools, the most notable tools being rollback links (the namesake of the right), Huggle, and some features in RedWarn.

As time has progressed, the rollback feature and right has been used for more than just rollback links (i.e. a link that's clicked and immediately reverts an edit without summary) and as such the current rollback policy is outdated, confusing and conflicts with what many people use it for (i.e. through Huggle or other tools with edit summaries). Because of the lack of clarity, many times WP:ROLLBACKUSE has been brought up in discussions, even when it's usually not applicable to use of rollback with edit summaries (i.e. by using the rollback link).

We should clarify this - as such I think renaming the right on the English Misplaced Pages to "Tool Confirmed" or similar (thinking along the lines of auto-confirmed, extended-confirmed, tool confirmed, but I welcome proposals for any better name) that clearly describes what the role does, why the person has it and how they can be held accountable for their use.

The rollback link policy should then be merged into the wider reversion policy as no matter where, tool use without edit summaries should only be appropriate in certain situations and autoconfirmed users can replicate the use of rollback links by using a tool such as Twinkle or RedWarn. This means there won't be fragmentation between what essentially in both cases is just reverting an edit.

A sample of what my idea of a summary would look like:
Tool confirmed editors are editors approved by an administrator to have access to more powerful semi-automated tools. A tool confirmed user has access to features in tools such as X, Y and Z, also access to rollback links.

This could also supersede the AutoWikiBrowser request page, if technically possible.

We should also consider creating a tag named something along the lines of "Tool edit" that's required for all automated tools, userscripts etc on the English Misplaced Pages where appropriate and possible to increase accountability and other benefits such as analytics.

What do people think? ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. I requested Rollback because I'd heard intriguing stuff about Huggle, then had Rollback removed when I discovered that I didn't like using Huggle. I couldn't see any other use for having Rollback, because Twinkle provides rollback/vandalism links in both article history view and diff view, and enables rollback of multiple edits (sequential by a single editor) in one click. So the Rollback permission isn't really associated to rollback functionality. Schazjmd (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not think of the rollback permission as mainly functional or technical—giving access to tools—rather as a matter of trust, in effect a licence to revert vandalism without an edit summary. IMO it doesn’t really matter how the revert is done, be it with a helper script, the rollback button, or simply null-editing an old version of the page (which last any user can do).—Odysseus1479 01:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

What does the rollback right grant, other than the "" link? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Permission to use Huggle, and nothing else. 🐔 Chicdat   10:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That's incorrect. In fact the rollback right is required by quite a few tools for both technical and other reasons. "Tool confirmed" could also extend to providing trusted users with more powerful features and merge already complex permission systems together. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 17:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Literally the only thing that membership in the rollbackers group does is confer access to the rollback permission. The rollback permission allows an user to request a server-side reversion. None of these other scripts or clients are official and are subject to change on the whims of their maintainers, or in some cases by any user that wants to fork or recompile them. — xaosflux 17:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, that is technically what it does, but what I'm proposing is an expansion and restructuring of this policy, especially how a lot of people only apply for rollback for access to tools such as Huggle. ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 00:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the current situation doesn't make as much sense as it should and that it should be improved. I specifically agree it's silly how we draw such a distinction between rollback and undo. Putting all of countervandalism behind a role might not be such a bad idea. Hear me out! Perhaps without the role, you could only improve existing edits by adding a citation, or rewording bad edits, but you wouldn't have an easy way in the software to undo them. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Would this involve removing the “undo” button, which allows an easy way in software to undo edits? I imagine that doing so would have impacts beyond counter vandalism. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10: undo is all client-side, it really just helps populate your edit window and edit summary. — xaosflux 15:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

While I'm in the mood for weird ideas, perhaps undo could be made available after you've added or edited X amount of text in articles, because indeed undo is useful for a lot of other edits. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

What links here

I would like to propose that "what links here" feature to sort articles alphabetically. I think that would be more useful. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 19:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

So do I, though ideally by namespace then title. Meanwhile, you may be interested in User:GhostInTheMachine/SortWhatLinksHere. Certes (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Bless you, Certes, for pointing me to this. I have been craving something like this (be it the OP's dream version or Ghost's slight-daly-while it sorts version). Thanks to GhostInTheMachine, too, of course. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, add this as a sorting option. Not the default, though. BD2412 T 20:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It probably won't happen because the DB query would not be efficient. Anomie⚔ 23:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Bada Kaji: I moved this from VPR, as it isn't a ready to go proposal. This isn't an option we can set here on the English Misplaced Pages. You could perhaps maybe build a very inefficient javascript for it, but that would be in userscript land for at least a while. If you would like this added as a new software feature for the software please see: Misplaced Pages:Bug reports and feature requests for how to submit a software feature request on the mediawiki software that runs Misplaced Pages. — xaosflux 23:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  My biggest ask for What links here is to filter out "things that link here only because of a transcluded template". For example, every park in NYC links to every other park in NYC because they all include {{Protected areas of New York City}}, but that's almost never what I'm looking for. I vaguely remember there was a phab ticket for this which was basically closed as "infeasible" due to the way things are parsed. But I still want it. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Exactly. Trawling through an unsorted (very random-looking) list of articles which, when you go there, don't seem to have the link anyway, until you expand all the navboxes at the bottom... well, it can be quite maddening. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 23:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe you might find User:V111P/js/What Links Here link filter useful. But see also Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#What Links Here generating too many listings due to navboxes. Thincat (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  @RoySmith See User:PrimeHunter/Source links.js, which generates a search for pages that link directly to the target, excluding templates. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 18:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Report :Do proposal discussion Editors match Active Editor Demographics

The Misplaced Pages:Wikipedianscommunity proposal consensus is only true consensus if it has involvement of all demographics in terms of years experience,and diversity. Not as a percentage, but least as a voice to explain different views. The Misplaced Pages foundation board is thinking of expanding to reflect diversity, but we don't know whether our consensus is being dominated by one group

A way of doing this would be to have reports that

• Compare between proposal editors and Active Editors. the years of active editing, diversity, and editor type. (Diversity could be based on user page templates or Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Accessibility membership).
• Compare the voting percentage (Abstain, Support, Oppose) by years of active editing and editor type
• Confirm whether a few voices dominate proposals. Consensus does not means the majority always wins, but you would expect that the majority would be in line with consensus most of the time

Why should we care? There is more editing to be done than has already been done; there are huge numbers of maintenance tags, article tags, open Talk topics especially non replied, various error reports, missing content, procedure readability improvements, missing or questionable references, missing or incorrect categories,mentors needed,stubs, low project membership, article quality etc,... Wakelamp db (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you really mean if it does not have involvement? I believe you have the sense reversed in your lead sentence. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Doh. Fixed Wakelamp db (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I would be surprised if the average policy consensus was particularly representative of the community or of the readers, along any number of axes. The problem of backing that up with numbers is more thinking than I'd want to do on a Friday night, however. Enterprisey (talk!) 10:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Agee.My Suspicions is that is wildly unrepresentative Wakelamp db (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Just thinking about it, would it change anything.... probably not. I was interested to see if change was being blocked by WP:OWN editors Wakelamp db (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course it's wildly unrepresentative, @Wakelamp. This is known. This isn't even hard to prove with purely public information. The median number of edits per registered account is either zero or one. Of the people who do make their first edit, most never edit again for months, if ever. Anyone who makes two edits has an above-average edit count. 95% (ninety-five percent!) of registered editors have never made 10 edits. 99.8% of registered editors haven't made it to 500 edits. Every person who has replied to you so far in this section is well beyond that level: we are all in the top 0.01% by edit count. We have made more edits than 99.99% of registered users.

My question for you is: Do you really want every discussion to be equally weighted by edit count, so that completely inexperienced people get the same say as people who know what they're talking about? Perhaps it would be appropriate for question that affect newcomers the same as they affect experienced editors (e.g., whether the default image size should be increased), but maybe other questions (e.g., whether a given source is suitable for a specific article) should prioritize experienced editors. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree 1 editor : 1 vote would not work with WIkipedia. There is too much experience needed. But my concern with this question was not about newish users (although the teahouse editors would make a good proxy), but about the current content creators, the crafters who work FA, etc. They may not do as many edits, but they create the content. So, I was trying to work out whether were represented, in some decisions For instance 1/ Allow IP editors. The consequences of that will be time and stress for NPP, CfD, (CfD already has a huge multi years backlog) And More NPP editors also create more tags, rather than fix tags (which affects wikignomes like me) 2/ Reference lists should not be defined in detail. Consequence of is that the Article Wizard can't ask them to fill in the references they will using before they spend 4 hours creating the article, then rage quit after AfD.3/ Clarity of procedures and guidelines - Does make it more difficult for those with less English skills, younger, or using voice readers to be editors? Does too much complexity encourage anger? Wakelamp db (talk) 13:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Blockchain and Misplaced Pages

There is a lot happening in the blockchain world that is beyond crypto currencies. Non-fungible token (NFT) for example. Anytime you want to reward users towards a goal, or gameify a process to attract users, it might have an application. Is anyone working on, or proposed, or suggested, anything related to blockchain and Misplaced Pages? I'm not outright suggesting it be done, only want to learn more what is being done or discussed, if anything. -- GreenC 14:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

As someone dealing with ill-informed crypto boosterism creeping into my professional work, I really hope that I don't need to fight it on Misplaced Pages too. _signed, Rosguill 15:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such proposals, and to be honest I hope none ever materialise. Blockchain has always looked to me to be mostly a solution in search of a problem. firefly ( t · c ) 15:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Please no. I would certainly attract people, but not the people we need. Vexations (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Time to start selling NFTs for each individual diff! --Masem (t) 17:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Putting aside how silly the idea is in general, I wonder whether NFTs, to comply with CCYBASA 3.0 would inherently themselves be under that license Nosebagbear (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Describing the idea as silly is harsh @Nosebagbear. @GreenC has just suggested an elephant sized tool for a mouse size problem.

@GreenC thank you for being on Misplaced Pages for 18 years, wakelamp said after looking at your user page. :-)

Blockchain raises high levels of horror in IT, because it provides security through high processing time on each transaction, and adds complexity to implementing what otherwise would be simple processes. This makes sense for some situations, but the desirability, monetary value, and importance of the an achievement badge does not justify it. NFTs are really for trading things or identifying things uniquely, but there is no standard, and it has the same issue as blockchains. To give you and indication of the differences, Openbadge.org is very small and very quick and uses a digital certificates similar to a website.

Gamification is worth discussing, because we have an issue retaining new Editors, an obsession with # of edits, and our ideals not matching our interactions. Also when I see a user page (your's excepted of course :-)) I always want to run screaming the word "Geocities" .

Here are two game systems assosciated with forum and the creation of contents https://boardgamegeek.com/page/BoardGameGeek_FAQ and https://whirlpool.net.au/wp_smileysystem . Wakelamp db (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages doesn't need a blockchain. A blockchain is used for distributed consensus. But Misplaced Pages has centralized consensus; everyone agrees on what part of the encyclopedia Special:PermaLink/1054013081 refers to. As far as NFTs, we have Barnstars, which are already on the "centralized blockchain". Sure, you can't sell barnstars for money, but you're not supposed to profit from your Misplaced Pages edits, remember? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

FWIW Everipedia uses blockchain. I've never used it but is an experiment in applying the tech to a wiki environment. -- GreenC 21:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I have looked at their site- It seems to be about paying content creators with micro- payments Wakelamp db (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Eveipedia? That highly succesful experiment that e.g. lists Kamala Harris as Senator and Presidential candidate? I think we may consider Everipedia to be dead as a dodo. Even Joe Biden is still described as a candidate, and Donald Trump as the current president. Only blockchain and crypto articles still get updated, it seems. Fram (talk) 14:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Everipedia do seem to be the parallel universe of Misplaced Pages. (even to the Other Founder having been the CIO)., But i think it is good that @GreenC brought them up. What would Sun Tzu advice? :-) .. What can we learn from them? Why didn't micro-payment work? Was their platform more attractive to some editors than Misplaced Pages? Wakelamp db (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk and Article integration to reduce editing time

Topic was : Change TALK tab to show the # of non archived tasks The problem is TALK has no visibility on ARTICLE, TALK topic status is hard to know, and editing must be done on both ARTICLE and TALK. The Reader has no cues to article quality except maintenance template, and no incentive to look at TALK and become an EDITOR. An idea TALK Page

• Topics to contain an additional shortcut status Template:Done, similar to subscribe.
• the TALK Tab to shows the number of topics not DONE similar to inbox
• Maintenance templates to create a linked TALK topics - changing to Done removes maintenance template. Changing status to undone ass its
• Changing the first project importance and quality updates ARTICLE header

ARTICLE Page

• Selecting ARTICLE Publish - List of topics shows to the left. Editor can select topic(s) and change status. Or open up topic and enter directly The Publish Summary is automatically added to the Topic at
• Reverting a linked update on either reverts both

Topic was : Change TALK tab to show the # of non archived tasks Make the Talk Tab show the number of open non archived topics. So, similar to many systems for notifications, email, and messaging system Wakelamp db (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

On most talk pages, "archiving" isn't used, nor is there a "close" of topics. This could possibly be useful for pages on on projects that use Flow. — xaosflux 16:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xaosflux Flow is marked as historical. is EN going to use flow?

With archives, I was going to raise a separate idea, if this one had potential. That idea was going to be that Talk has an option to mark a topic as CLOSED, similar to archive/closed tag used on RFC, but also with an option to REOPEN.

These two ideas were to solve

• An Editor on Article does not know there is anything on talk.
• An Editor on Talk has to skim all Talk Topics
• Maybe reduce the number of Talk Topics (especially from Newbies) that never get a reply

@Enterprisey I was after it for everyone Wakelamp db (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Might be doable as a user script. WP:SCRIPTREQ to request. -- GreenC 17:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

You're in luck: User:Enterprisey/talk-tab-count Enterprisey (talk!) 21:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Flow became mw:Structured Discussions - and enwiki isn't using it anywhere (for now) - some other projects do use it, notable mediawikiwiki. — xaosflux 14:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Do other editors Look at talk consistently? And what are the downsides of this idea? Wakelamp db (talk) 05:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The chief downsides were given by xaosflux: we don't usually close or archive discussions, so it's impossible for a computer program to know if any single discussion needs a response. As a result, people would learn not to trust the number of topics displayed, because some of the topics could be obsolete.If the idea is to get more people responding to talk pages, we could get a bot to comment on wikiproject talk pages with a random selection of talk page sections. But that would annoy people unless the links were all useful or interesting, so you'd need a human to do it anyway. That's a lot of work. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The interesting or useful is really hard to detect. You can do keyword or weasel word searches, but how do you tell if they are interesting? Unless we allowed an editor to mark the topic as interesting.....hmmm.

We definitely shouldn't create extra work. I was looking through missing category history and a few other reports - we are indicating more work with tags and templates than we are getting rid off. (I was trying to work out a way of estimating the backlog).

I agree with you about archives..... Ok what about ] and squiggly brackets edit fully-protected ... answered=yes}} and Talk:Ninth generation of video game consoles. Wakelamp db (talk) 11:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Flow is used on a few Wikipedias, plus MediaWiki.org. See mw:Talk:Sandbox if you'd like to try it out. The WMF has no current plans for developing it further. If anyone finds about $10M and a spare dev team lying about, please kindly contact me, and I will give you a list of bugs and missing features in Flow to fix first (I'll give you the list for free.  ;-)).

In terms of what to do, the Editing team is watching the ideas shared at mw:Talk pages project (and its multiple sub-pages). Different "stories" about how people think about talk pages are useful to them. For example, @Wakelamp seems to have a vision of a talk page that is a bit like a checklist of tasks to be accomplished. Other concepts are similar to spaces for decision-making, or a casual hangout spot. If you have a metaphor or concept (or a variant on a concept) that helps you describe what a talk page is for, then please post it at mw:Talk:Talk pages project. This kind of background or high-level information is more useful to the designer and product manager than you might guess. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It's good that the discussions are of use, and those metaphors are good, but I really really think WMF reach out to the different Talk user types . (BTW My vision is changing based on the discussions, and as I dig through the various areas, but it is based on the 4th Pillar "editors should treat each other with respect and civility" (with a bit of stretching))

• Respect - Respect is not just listening to others you are in conversation with, it is also noticing that others have spoken. As a Wiki Gnome, my guess is 20 % of high importance talk topics are archived without reply, and nearly all topics on low importance articles never get a reply, or are even looked at. The stretch is that it it is also about being respectful of other's time - if something has been fixed, I don't need to know about it. If I must need to know about mark the topic as FAQ, In talk, refer to other's comments, and try to combine thoughts, not fragment them. All the article tags are a form of Talk - and most are a waste of time ; I can read an article and know it needs citations.
• Difference - The casual hangout things a good idea, but it should be at a higher level. I know of know other forum that doesn't have a casual lounge,. Some Wikipedians would dislike it as wasting editing time, ,but they also don't understand that others are different. Who cares if someone spends all their time editing their user page ( as long as it is hidden from google and reader searches)? If it increases the chances that they might do 1 edit in main it's awesome, . If they don't it is our fault for not engaging them
• Civility. This is declining I think, Many active editors have moved into tools, Many experienced editors, who were voices of moderation have got worn down and left,. New editors are not that attracted because of legalism and opaque rules. OVerall Misplaced Pages has an admin system for content and extremes,, but not a moderation system for medium bad behaviour. There are no consequences of being an ass. So I avoid long threads on Article Talk,
• Wakelamp db (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Disclaimer to posts on the confederacy and confederates

I am advocating that the below or something similar be added to EVERY page that is dedicated in anyway to the confederacy, anyone who fought for the confederacy, and for any groups the celebrate the confederacy. My ask for this is to simply present historically factual & accurate information. Over the last few years, the Jim Crow era statues to these treasonous people and the effort to continue to subjugate the African-American population have begun to be appropriately removed. Additionally, states have removed the confederate battle flag from the state flags in effort to stop celebrating a system as heinous what the confederacy was fighting for. It can easily be argued that because Misplaced Pages is often used by students as reference material and by people simply searching the internet for information that your pages without the header suggested below will do more harm and spread more misinformation than these statues ever would had they been left in place. And Misplaced Pages had a duty and moral obligation to present facts.

My suggestion for all confederate related pages is (all of this is true, factual and as neutral as is possible):

This man chose to serve and fight on the side of the Confederacy and against the democracy, the constitution of the United States during the American Civil War. The Confederacy was in direct violation of the US constitution thus by its nature serving to defend the confederacy was an act of treason against the United States of America.

The root cause of the confederacy was to maintain its economic system which was the enslavement of the African-American population. Only later did the southerners, including the Sons & Daughters of the confederacy propagate the mis truth of the lost cause, states’ rights, as the reason for the civil war. This is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Conversation (talk • contribs) 02:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Sidestepping the POV issue that is portraying the various institutions of the United States as indisputably good and beyond reproach, I'm just going to throw out there that the language is unencyclopedic and doesn't have a good place in most articles. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

In general, mandating by policy that specific text be included in all articles that have some characteristic is not something we do. I understand the sentiment, though it might reasonably give undue weight to the status of some people as confederate soldiers, especially for those who became notable later in life for something else entirely. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Why make confederate soldiers an exception to our general "no disclaimers" guideline? There have been many conflicts in world history in which one or both sides was just as, or even more, evil than the confederacy. We rely on the neutral point of view policy to take care of things. This idea smacks very much of American exceptionalism. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. For nasty, horrible and evil, try Nazi human experimentation. I see no disclaimers there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

All right, I think we've rained and snowed on this suggestion enough. I don't think this one's getting out of the lab. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughts and feedback. I in no way advocated that this type of disclaimer only be placed on Confederate pages; something similar should be placed on pages of Nazis, supporters/champions of other racist/violent/bigoted groups. So please argue that such a disclaimer be placed on those pages and I will support your efforts. These institutions/people must be appropriately identified as such. Leekycauldron your rain is acidic and frankly misplaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Conversation (talk • contribs) 04:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, I'm still going to push back on WP:NPOV grounds. We need to properly weigh reliable sources with different viewpoints in how we describe individuals. Would we want to put a giant disclaimer atop Pope Benedict XVI to say that he was in the Hitler Youth and therefore, by somebody's analysis, he was complicit in Nazi war crimes? I'd imagine not; that isn't how reliable sources describe him, though the Hitler Youth did indeed do some really terrible things. In general, the coverage of specific individuals, particularly for living people need more nuance than blanket statements posted in the articles of all people in X group. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

While I agree that those who performed, enabled or supported actions in the name of the Confederacy did "great wrongs", Misplaced Pages is not the place to right "great wrongs". We summarize what reliable sources have to say about subjects. We do not editorialize in Misplaced Pages. - Donald Albury 13:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Idea: Explicitly add Notability as a GA Criterion

You might think that this is silly—isn’t every article required to be notable? While perWP:N, the answer is yes, in practice there are articles that have slipped through GA and FA that we’re later determined by the community to be non-notable.

The recent deletion of Lewis (baseball) shows that even featured articles can have issues with notability. However, FA nominations take up an enormous amount of editor time—both for the multitude of reviewers required and for the editors who prepare the article. As a result, when non-notable articles are promoted to FA, an enormous amount of time is wasted entirely.

Likewise, articles that are evaluated for GA demand editor time—both from an evaluator and from the editor(s) who prepare the article prior to its nomination—though not to the same extent as an FA. Obviously, we want to avoid wasted work, since editor time is our most valuable asset. But, by GA not having an explicit notability requirement, articles on dubious notability could make it through the entire process and even gain the green plus topic on without an affirmative check being done on the article’s notability. Our current system, therefore, is causing a decent amount of time waste when articles approach that level.

To create an explicit requirement that an article to affirmatively meet WP:N at the time of its nomination for GA would help to lighten this sort of wasted work. It would require authors to find in-depth sourcing of the articles before making nominations, potentially leading to improved article quality. And, since FA articles must pass all GA criteria, changes made to the GA criteria would carry over to FA—this would reduce the risk of having articles of dubious notability go through the entire FA process, succeed because it passes all explicit requirements, and then subsequently be deleted.

The downside to this sort of rule (as far as I can tell) is twofold: first, articles that are just barely notable but indeed pass WP:N (or possibly would earn a no consensus at AfD) are going to have a very hard time being appreciated as good articles if their content is good; second, it would leave it to individual editors (who vary significantly on the deletionism-inclusionism spectrum) to make a call on whether something is notable, whereas the AfD process is community-based and allows for consensus to form on notability. If we are to solve these problem by launching an AfD every time the GA reviewer were to not find an article clearly notable, this might result in more work overall (though it might help in trimming out cruft easier).

I’m wondering if anybody else has thoughts around an idea like this, or knows if this has been tried before. I’m thinking about a formal proposal, but I would prefer to do brainstorming to try to come up with something more concrete before a proposal gets made. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm skeptical that this would actually have any effect in practice. It is quite rare for a GA topic to be found non-notable—even more so for FA—and in the few instances where it does happen, it's not because the GA reviewer did not check for the subject's notability, but because the GA reviewer had a different opinion about the subject's notability compared to the editor(s) that eventually came along to question it. Mz7 (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• I have similar thoughts to Mz7—any GA reviewer worth their salt is already checking (or possibly spot-checking) sources to make sure that the information in the article is reflected in its sourcing. If they somehow fail to notice along the way that the article is blatantly non-notable, that's a failure on the reviewer's part, not the criteria. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• I echo the concerns of the two above editors. This is a very sporadic problem that doesn't appear very often. 🐔 Chicdat   11:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Google Doodle advance notice

Whenever there's a Google Doodle honoring a person, it always drives a ton of traffic to their article. Sometimes we luck out and it's an FA, other times it's only start-class. Idk if Google would be willing to give us advance notice or who to ping at the WMF to get in touch with Google to ask, but it'd help to have some time to prepare the article. {{u|Sdkb}}  18:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

How much traffic are we talking? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron As a recent example, Charles K. Kao went from <400 page views per day to over 400,000 pageviews when featured in a Google Doodle earlier this week: pageviews. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Google states that the doodles are "surprising". Probably, they want to keep them a secret. Bada Kaji (talk • श्रीमान् गम्भीर) 18:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Do New Zealand etc. get it early (when it's a global one)? If so they can alert the rest of the world. Nardog (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

holy crap. Yeah, we should figure out if there's a way we can get some advance notice. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Historical task force: Misplaced Pages:Articles for improvement/Google Doodle task force. {{u|Sdkb}}  19:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

{{@Sdkb)) How often would this occour per years? DO you know the rough split by quality for the last yeat?

Looking at the root cause, Maybe we should ask Google to prioritize high quality Article? Of if thy still want a low quality item arrange for them to contact an editor group offline?

{{@}}] I am fascinated to know as well. I have asked the Kiribati Islands and Google Doodle on Quora Wakelamp db (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Gadget to automatically watch certain vandalism targets

The gadget would do something like this:

1. Every hour or so, fetch a list of articles linked from the Main Page.
2. If any page is not on your watchlist, or is watched for less than (say) 24 hours, add the page to your watchlist for (say) 36 hours.

Roughly speaking, Special:RelatedChanges/Main Page would be merged into your watchlist. Now if only a handful of people enable this gadget, it will hardly make a dent, but image if thousands of users install it!

And why stop at the MP? There's also Category:Recent deaths, Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection/Increase, and probably other possibilities I'm not thinking of. To avoid cluttering the watchlist too much, semi-protected pages, or pages already watched by 500 active users could be excluded. Or maybe only watch a randomly selected 25 pages, instead of all of them.

You can see a simple proof-of-concept at User:Suffusion of Yellow/autowatch.js. There is no user interface; just install it and it will do its thing. If anyone likes this idea I'll continue to develop the script. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

To be frank, I installed the program and i've still got the pages in my watchlist like weevils in my hair. this would have to be paired with watchlist categorization. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: So, too many pages, then? Would it have been so irritating if only about 25 pages were watched? In any case, said weevils should have all died by now (36 hours). If not, something went very wrong. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

the weevils have gone, thanks :) It's a bit too many pages for me, so if there were a way that it could be a separate, centralized watchlist, that'd be easier. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Well the idea is that people wouldn't have to click on a separate page. They can already click on Special:RelatedChanges/Main Page, or Special:RelatedChanges/Category:Recent deaths if they want. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron You mean something like Special:RecentChangesLinked/Main_Page? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's about what I'm looking for. I don't think we need much else/ theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Spoken Misplaced Pages at WP:TFA, part 2

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.

Okay, after some discussion at WT:TFA, i want to iron out the text of my proposal concerning the narration of the blurbs at Today's Featured Article before the proposal goes to RfC. Pinging @Valereee and Maile66 as a part of the previous discussion.

Problem: The Main Page of English Misplaced Pages is regularly seen by 5.5 million people, of which a significant number are sight-impaired. While WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages exists to narrate existing articles, and has narrated hundreds of Featured Articles, users are currently not allowed to add recordings to sections of the Main Page. Not every section of the Main Page is easily narrated—Did you know, On this day, and In the news, for example, are too unpredictable to have immutable recordings attached to them. Today's Featured Article (TFA), however, consists of a single thousand-character blurb generally updated only once a day, ideal for a spoken recording.

Proposal: In every nomination template for TFA, there should be an optional "narration" parameter that allows the nominator, or any other interested editor, to add a spoken recording of the blurb that is to appear on the Main Page. A sample narration on a past iteration of the Main Page can be found here. No nomination will be required to contain a narration, but any recording that is attached to the nomination must be reviewed by an admin according to the guidelines laid out by WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages for technical quality, clarity, and accuracy before the recording can accompany the nomination to the Main Page. This proposal has the potential to help thousands in accessing the article Misplaced Pages's most proud of. This isn't limited to sight-impaired people, either; this proposal also accommodates those with reading disabilities, those too young to read, or those who just more easily digest information in auditory form.

Any constructive criticism of the proposal is invited! If someone knows how to make the language take itself less seriously, that'd also be welcome. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I like this idea a lot. My sole concern would be regarding the ability to fully vet the recording before the featured article would make it to the main page, though I do not believe that this would be too big of a logistical hassle to outweigh the benefits of including the spoken article for the sight-impaired or those who have limited literacy. This is something that's very thoughtful of you, Theleekycauldron. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I think the concept is very forward-thinking as we continue to build an encyclopedia accessible to everyone. This would accommodate not only the sight-impaired, but also anyone struggling with any reading disability, children too young to read, or any number of factors. — Maile (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ooh, good point! I'm putting that in the proposal, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Since we're in VPI I won't do the bold !vote, but this seems reasonable unless a template-ite says there's a technical nuisance in doing it. Blurb lengths aren't very long, so compared to the effort in vetting an actual FAC, vetting the blurb (then or later) isn't significant. It's not akin to vetting a recording of the whole article. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Like other MP content, would need to ensure that such media files are available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and/or CCO. They would also need upload protection applied (as this isn't inherited from cascading protection). — xaosflux 19:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• From the sample at User:Theleekycauldron/TFA test, I don't like how much space the playback control is using here, also that specific layout is causing the border to be pushed out a bit. The first part is really up for discussion on how prominent/intrusive that control should be - the second needs some technical work. — xaosflux 19:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: I agree, that's been gnawing at me a bit, so work with me here—how would you make it smaller? I've shrunk it to 100px across, what other redesigns would you make? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron: probably need a custom container for it instead of the default File: handler - that is likely what is interfering with the right side margins; as for sizing and styling - It could be good the way it is sized now, not sure though - that is something that needs some feedback perhaps. Maybe other following this can show some mock ups. — xaosflux 00:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  all right, all of that's noted—cart before the horse, though, let's try and get this proposal a bit closer to rock solid before the technical discussions theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Great idea! Totally support. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support We should let blind people be able to "see" the encyclopedia. 🐔 Chicdat   11:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• OK providing that it's technically feasible and that it works for blurbs that are more image than text; sometimes a TFA blurb needs to emphasize the image and show only little text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think this can work for those too! And if they don't, it's possible that they won't be recorded theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Maile66, Nosebagbear, Xaosflux, Gwennie-nyan, Valereee, Chicdat, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion and in previous discussions to help hone this idea; I've opened an RfC at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Spoken narrations of the blurbs at Today's featured article (TFA). I encourage you to participate there as well, but if not, thank you still! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Add corporate Company/Charity ID to company info box. Cross check with registries

WAS AfD for companies - Add lookup of Company data via Misplaced Pages library? Companies are going to extreme lengths to falsify notability, size, and history.

Are there any stats on companies that pass NPP and/or AfC and are detected later? Better would be a random sample of companies

So, having a link to corporate registers might fix a few pathways - Fraudulent use of an old company's name that was notable - A new company or charity can find an existing Misplaced Pages article for an old company, create a company with the same or similar name, then update the page to show their current website page - A company can cease trading and there is no prompt. IF they had the Misplaced Pages page on file, we could get advised by the notices that are created by corporate registers - The size of the company can be manipulated - false charities in WP are particularly nasty, as they increase up the chance of scam sucess.

Before that - Would it help AfD, if Misplaced Pages Library arranged access to paywalled company data and this was accessible via their new search tool initially

The paywalled data would be things like

b]] (talk) 08:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wakelamp: none of this would have any relevance to a company's notability. In terms of size, it's possible we might draw a staff number from one of these, though it's non-ideal, but our access to these wouldn't really give us any more reliable idea than what we have already. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

No change to what makes a company notable - The extra information] was to allow doubt to be cast on a apparently squeaky clean company, that had gamed wikipedia by using advertorials, or misled, or was reusing once notable company name. Wakelamp db (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Are we too focused on number of edits?

I can't find any proposal to add another measure that recognizes the people who create lots of non-reverted content, or for the people that fix up issues, or people who do AfD /AfC, or discuss on talk, etc.

"What gets measured gets done." may have been said by W. Edwards Deming who would have made a very good editor, Wakelamp db (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wakelamp db (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wakelamp, This has been a topic of numerous academic studies. Some have proposed various better measures, but they did not get much traction. In the end, most of these require database analysis that is either difficult or simply nobody bothered with implementing them, so we are still stuck with a simple edit count. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The database analysis issue might not be that bad - we already access every single record in the user file and every single record in the edit history. If we can use fields on those files it might be easier. . My thoughts were number of edits would be split into tool/non tool and the same for number of characters

• Ok - Number of characters
• ??? - Tool Assisted
• OK - BOT edit
• Ok - Roll back / reverts
• ??? tags removed - tags added  ???Good faith New Editor genuine Interactions -
• ?? - Roll back / reverts
• ?? - Number of AfD or speedy template
• ?? - Number who have not edited since you AfD/Roll Back/Revert Wakelamp db (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Of course we should have a measure which is more meaningful than number of edits... but it's hard to imagine an automated measure that could not easily be gamed. Encouraging pointless edits (as we currently do) is certainly counter-productive. Fabrickator (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

See WP:EDITCOUNT.--♦IanMacM♦ 13:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wakelamp, I made this table for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Just curious, are those edit counts global or just for enwiki? 192.76.8.91 (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank-you for the table. I think it does gives a good indication of experience up to a point, but do you think it encourages peoples to use automated tools? And to encourages people to move from content creation to tool use? And maybe the word top is not the best? And it also has the disadvantage that it makes it impossible for Junior editors to catch up.

There are a number of statistics already in place and measured

X tools gives you 1/ edits in main, talk, wiki 2/ manual or bot/tool assisted 3/ % of edits classified as small, medium, large. 4/ You can also see that in the last 30 days there have only been 100 active admins

http://en.wikichecker.com/

I just found a research project that also measured whether words that you added stayed roughly in the same place versus the the current version. It also measured the number of hours worked. It's a few years old, but the charts are great but it makes the following points

1. Registered editors in English Misplaced Pages are not getting less productive despite a dramatic reduction in the active population of editors. {BUT it also discusses that this is due to tool use}
2. Anonymous editors contribute substantially to overall productivity; however, their proportion of overall contribution has been steadily declining since the beginning of 2006.

Wakelamp db (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I think that focusing on any metric can encourage people to "win" by that metric. Having multiple metrics can balance these effects.

OTOH, I think that if more of the people on this page knew that we were (almost) all in the 99.9th percentile, we might be less inclined to think that we were "typical" editors and that what works for us is what works for all editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

These numbers are enwiki only. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Won't the results be rather skewed then by potentially millions of editors who signed up to edit other languages and other projects, who had accounts created here automatically by central auth without the user asking for one (or even necessarily wanting one)? 192.76.8.95 (talk) 10:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It also includes people who tried to edit but couldn't figure out our software. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

...and users who just created an account to set up their display preferences or keep a watchlist. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I have created a table just as a discussion piece for some major areas, and how I think their work relates to the number of edits. I have added in experience level and automation, to show my understanding that experienced editors use the automated tools more for instance (NPP Editor requirements). Part of this was inspired by reading the very interesting essay User:Cullen328/Smartphone_editing by User:Cullen328. It made me understand the work that dedicated "artisanal" editors do. He uses no tools, but has done 80 K edits; so I created a separate row for editors like him. :-) Wakelamp db (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Article Stage	Work	Edit?	Edits/Hour	Experienced or Junior	Stress Cause	Part of a team	Visible measure	Backlog
New Articles	Content	Manual	1 o 2	Both	Inexperience and Rejection Article Wizard does not have the same checks as NPP Large amount of time to create first article	No	Deleted Articles	No
Redirects	links	Scripts	Immense	Exp	None	No	????	No
AfC	Content Support	Manual	Few	Exp	New User Aggression from not understanding process High Backlog Lack of Resources	Yes	See discussion on AfC page	Medium
Support , Help , Teahouse	Support	Manual	Few	Exp	Agression	Yes	Thanks	No
NPP /Page curator/ Copyrights	Defence	Tools	Large	Exp	Low - high sense of satisfaction	Yes	NPP measures	No
AfD, images, copyright	Defence	Manual	Few	Exp	Aggression - especially based on country etc Scammers Systematic issues Fraud	Yes	Backlog ????	????
CfD	Judge	Manual	Few	Exp	Very low resources Highest Backlog 650 K + categories- nearly all not accessed Over-classifiers No category approval process Very easy to create new categories on the fly No process to ensure category-article process	Yes	Age of categories	Increasing and Huge
Stub, Maintenance tags,templates	Error ID	Tools	Large	Exp	None	Yes	????	????
Small fixes	Error Fix Small Content	Some tools	Few	IP Junior Gnomes	Insufficient Resources Errors are mostly obvious - so why tag, as more work Sense of satisfaction varies Low automation / multi screen process Talk is a waste of time on low importance	Many projects are dead	No measures of tags removed No automatic rating change (for low importance)	Very large and increasing - increase in various errors - movements in quality ratings - templates are in place for years
Animators, Artists	Images	Manual	None		??	???	????	???
Talk	Content	Manua	Low	Exp	Conflict seeking, Ad Hom, OWN,, Admin shortage What is important ? What has already been fixed, but no one closed the talk? Poor user of talk (splitting threads, no consensus building)	No	None	Decades
Content Creators	Content	Manual	Lower	Junior	Overcategorisers Lack of resources	Tech Areas Yes Other Areas vary	Self Direected	Decades
Quality Ugr	Content	Manual	1 o 2	Both	Either high interest areas or Artisanal solo editors working through their interest areas	Tech areas - yes other areas vary	lone	Centuries
Featured Article	Contents	Manual	1 o2	Exp	Resourced Artisanal	Yes	Featured Articles	No
Projects	Content Improvement	Manual But Some tools	???	Exp	Many dead. No recruitment prompts Unclear purpose sometimes Community is criticised by some Some work well, but they need a clear purpose	Varies	????	????
Proposals	Proposals	Manual	Low	Exp	????	????	Qualitative measures only	????
Policies and Procedures	Talk	Manual	Low	EXP	Conflict Resistance versus Reform	????	No measure of effectiveness No readability Extra work is not of concern	????
Bot writers	Tech	Manual	Low	Exp	Maintaining data used by scripts Unclear procedures Distrust by some editors of IT and Wikimedia	????	????	????
Admin	Prosecutor Investigator Judge	Tools Manual	Low High	Exp	Aggression Resources Stress	????	????	????

Wakelamp db (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Wakelamp, I think that if you are trying to find metrics, then you should look at the edits by Alexbrn. He spends a lot of time removing bad content. His average edit "contribution size" is a negative number. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

It's true I do. I'd be fascinated to know what my net article-space byte change number was! Alexbrn (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexbrn I would be fascinated too - I had not realised that the Ecclesiastian Editor("a time to tear down and a time to build") editor existed (There is also a Scottish word meaning Terse, but I can't remember it) In the opposite case, at the extreme , a metric that praised words, could lead to verbosity, or readability issues. Or on Terseness could lead to single word Laconic ("If") articles. ~~~ Wakelamp db (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I think you misunderstand my intent. I am not after metrics for their own sake. I have a few concerns

• That a focus a single metric, (and the proliferation of tool use that has happened over the last 5ish year), has distorted editor behaviour, and
• That large number of tag edits is not increasing the quality of wikipedia especially on low importance items,
• That all Editor types (that have the same Goals as WIkipedia - so most Edit Wars should not be a thing), should be able to visibly see the value of their contribution to Misplaced Pages.
• So, if metrics should be line with Goals, what are the most important measurable current, and long terms goals of Misplaced Pages? Wakelamp db (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that most active editors are all that motivated by edit counts. Probably a few people are, at least for brief periods of time, but I'd guess that most people make edits out of a belief that their edits help Misplaced Pages. I might disagree that some of these edits are actually helpful (see, e.g., people who add Template:Uncat to articles, even though you could just use the automatic Special:UncategorizedPages if you wanted to find pages that needed categorization...), but I don't think people add those tags because it's a quick way to increase their edit counts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a current report on OAUTH /Bot/Tool assisted edits.. I saw a chart somewhere showing that I think 6000 users were using tools create half the edits NPP has a metric, but I am not sure what it measures

Misplaced Pages:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/November 2021 Wakelamp db (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

"most active editors are all that motivated by edit counts". Primary motivation varies as per the table, but there are lots of studies about people's behaviors changes based on how they are measured.. A few thought experiments

• A proposal is put forward that the number of edits is done is hidden for all users
• A proposal is put forward that the number of edits is no longer added to once it reaches a 1000
• A proposal is put forward that no data will be made available that ranks users by number of edits

Wakelamp db (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

There is qualitative and quantitative, computers are great the second and terrible at the former. Meanwhile humans prefer qualitative and find quantitative to be a bad way to measure human performance. This is not unique to Misplaced Pages! Think of algos that rate people or schools. See Weapons of Math Destruction -- GreenC 21:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That book looks excellent and I have now added it to my reading list. In the Other World, i have watched managers game metrics to achieve their bonus, at the expense of increasing costs/work/stress for others, and reducing the organisation overall. I found this immoral and abhorrent Based on your reading and experience, do you think that computers can measure qualitative issues that aren't about human performance (for instance Article Quality for low importance items, readability) and human performance that is not high stake (Well done on your third month of being an Artisanal editor OR achieving your personal goal OR you may be working too many hours OR are involved in many conflicts -Misplaced Pages can wait. ~~~ Wakelamp db (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

With Google resources :) Hard to say maybe it's a matter of building blocks not today but with semantic web data in place things more possible in the future. -- GreenC GreenC 05:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we need at least a split between bot/tool, and manual edits. There has been a massive migration to tools. And tools don't create content Wakelamp db (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Honestly I feel like 1 edit should not be top 50%. This means that with just a simple edit, you're already on of the 50% people with the most edits? ???????????????? I think there should be more, like 15 edits or 25 edits, something like that, to make it look serious. Because that doesn't make much sense to me. WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

"Top 50%" is a generous rounding on my part. 71.3% of registered editors have never made an edit here. The next 10.4% have made one edit, but only one. The next 4.9% have made exactly two edits. If you have managed to make five edits here, then you are in the top 10% of contributors to the English Misplaced Pages (by number of edits). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

71.3 % is rather large ..... anywhere else I would say it was a bot farm..... Do we know the distribution of account creation??? This doesn't include IP editors does it?? Wakelamp db (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It does not include IP editors. It includes people who didn't know that accounts are unnecessary, people who edit other Wikipedias, and people who tried to edit but couldn't figure out how. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing "people who tried to edit but couldn't figure out how." That's just depressing. I am analyzing all the New Article pathways, at the moment and I didn't have that one :-(. (Although I did have stuff about not understanding procedures), Can wiki detect new users who start an article and give up, or are user pathways tracked? It would be interesting to know if that improves with Visual.

@WaterflameIsAwesome The only way to do that is to get more editors to edit. :

Wakelamp db (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The devs can detect failed edit attempts, at least inside a Javascript-based editing environment. A "failed" attempt may be a good thing; it includes opening a page for the purpose of copying the wikitext, or opening the editing window and deciding that your planned edit (or comment) is a bad idea before you save it.

I suspect that this is in the category of sensitive data that is only kept for 90 days. The log item about the failed edit attempt probably (but someone would have to check) associates an IP address (or account id#) with the edit attempt. Once you know the editor, it should be possible to check Special:Contributions t see whether anyone using that IP had recently made a successful edit. I expect that this would be very painful to do manually, so you'd need someone with suitable privileges and automation skills to do it for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the first step in establishing percentages should be to cut off the long tail. "Editors" (people who register an account) who have never made an edit shouldn't be included in the computations. Schazjmd (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, in round numbers, that would give us:

• 30% have made one edit
• 15% have made two edits
• 10% have made three edits (this is the median editor, 45th to 55th percentile)

and you would be number #2622 out of 12.2 million ever-successfully-edited-here editors, rather than #2622 out of 42.5 million registered editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Edit count is obviously a poor metric because it doesn't measure productivity – an edit can be good, bad or indifferent. And they are a form of cost or input, rather than being a measure of value-added output and achievement.

For an example of a better metric, consider the number of citations added which would be a better measure of quality content. Editors boost their edit count by gaming, griefing, gnoming, gossiping and grinding but these activities don't tend to result in quality content with citations. So, counting citations added might be a better proxy for measuring useful work.

For example, see performance indicator and note that it is banner tagged as needing more citations. The person who added that tag boosted their edit count but didn't add any citations.

Andrew🐉(talk) 14:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

How do we count citations? Citations may range over unformated urls or names of books, <ref>...</ref>, or {{sfn*}}, inline or at the bottom of the article. Some may need work to make them appear correctly, but shouldn't an ill-formed attempt to provide a citation count? I like the idea, but I do not want to be the one trying to build a bot to count citations. - Donald Albury 20:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Apparently ORES data quality model counts ref tags, example use in educational dashboard here: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/The_University_of_Hong_Kong/EASC4407_-_Regional_Geology_Fall_2021_(Fall_2021)/students/overview . Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Neat! I don't see how to access the counter. I am curious to see what it shows for my own edits. The note says it counts ref tags. I wonder if it also counts SFN* templates (which I use as often as I can, these days). I guess improperly formatted citations would have to be fixed before they were counted. - Donald Albury 23:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• ORES is a machine-intelligence mechanism which has to be trained with examples of good and bad edits. This has been done for particular Wikis in particular languages and the details depend on the way that the sample data corpus is labelled as good, bad or whatever. This is a good way of building a metric because, if you have a simple rule like counting edits or citations, then people will then abuse and game it per the cobra effect, Campbell's law, Goodhart's law, Parkinson's law, &c. Ultimately, we ought to be able to run articles through such a tool and decide whether they are good or not. And then attribute this goodness to the editors who wrote it, in proportion to their contributions to the final form. And the final stage will be when the machine intelligence can also write the articles and so cut out the middle men. This is coming too... "A robot wrote this entire article. Are you scared yet, human?" Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's my personal opinion:

1 edit: Top 90%

5 edits: Top 80%

10 edits: Top 75%

50 edits: Top 60%

100 edits: Top 55%

500 edits: Top 50%

1,000 edits: Top 35%

10,000 edits: Top 25%

100,000 edits: Top 15%

500,000 edits: Top 10%

750,000 edits: Top 5%

1,000,000 edits: Top 1% (13 people have 1,000,000 edits)

Obviously, the list would change depending on how many users reach a certain point, how many users DON'T reach a certain point, and how many registered users there are on Misplaced Pages in general.

I added 1,000,000 edits because of the fact that multiple people have passed it, and it's over 10. However, this is how the list would go on (:O):

10,000,000 edits: Top 0.1%

100,000,000 edits: Top 0.01%

1,000,000,000 edits: Top 0.001%

10,000,000,000 edits: Top 0.0001%

50,000,000,000 edits: Top 0.00001%

100,000,000,000 edits: Top 0.000001%

1,000,000,000,000 edits: Top 0.0000001%

I went all the way to 1 Trillion edits :O

I know this is a far-fetched opinion but please respect it lol

WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Number of edits as a measure

As per previous comments, tools make doing a reverts a single click, gives a strong sense of community, and there leader boards showing the number of reverts

BUT there are

Consequences of Reverts using tools - good faith newcomers edit less, are more hesitant for up to a month and leave WP faster., editors active after 2 years has decreased *was 40 now 12%).

• A 2011 WMF by @EpochFail showed that sometimes what is reverted as vandalism, could be good faith newcomers, These good faith newcomers are far,far. more likely to have their first edit rejected, than the more experienced tool using editors were then they started editing
• The WMF paper found that reverting tools are increasingly and far more likely to revert the work of good-faith newcomers. (s there a quality check on false positives??)
• The WMF paper found these automated first edit reverts predict the observed decline in New Editor Retention - nearly 40% of new editors remained active for a year pre-2005, that number dropped to only 12-15% post-2007[
• The WMF paper found that Tool users often do not engage in best practice for discussing reverts or in their interactions .[Maybe a way of reducing this is to have canned comments)
• The WMF paper found that new users are being pushed out of policy articulation. Policies and guidelines are opaque and calcified, but Essays are being created to fix gaps. .
• Two papers by the same author showed an 80 % reduction of edits by new editors who have been reverted compared to new editors that weren't. It wasn't the difference between Vandals and good faith; Both groups had an equal chance of being reverted in the next 5 weeks.
• The same paper also mentions difficulty in "understanding the vast history of prior contributions, decisions, policies, and standards that the community has evolved over time.
• Another paper mentions that a study on a 1000 University students found that editors who had an edit "unfairly" reverted where more likely to vandalize or feel personal animosity towards that edit. This seems at odds with the WMF paper, but this was a qualitative survey
• This 2020 paper discusses these issues The following editors and others were recruited for a research project , were mentioned in the paper and may like to comment @Epochfail @jrmorgan, @Krinkle, @Chicocvenancio, @Rosiestep (Sorry, my second link to you today) , @Barkeep49 , @Nick Moyes @Timtempleton @SkyGazer 512 and @Ohanwe Emmanuel .I.. There are a large number of recommendations, but I would like to point to

"Users should be  incentivized  by  algorithmic  systems  to  behave  in  ways that create enduring value for the community."

• The same issue of keeping new and different editors is brought up, along with a suggestion to explain that it is the AI making that decision. I am not sure whether that is best. Maybe a scheduled edit for far longer than 5 minutes for marginal cases (to make them feel like it took time to a review), and the editor ability to choose a canned comment and a link to teahouse might be better; The paper also makes the assumption that experienced editors are best at managing conflict, But the article points out that conflict is a major reason that prolific editors leave.

"Misplaced Pages  has  become  like  an  ecosystem,  in  which  certain  kinds  of  people are  quite  well-adapted.  However,  “that  limits  the  diversity of  the  contributors.  So  the  ecosystem  needs  to  change  in  order  to  be  more  welcoming  to  certain  kinds  of  people.” 

“Identifying  stable  edit could  feed  back  into  a  model  that  provides  points  in  some  way that  does  encourage  good  behavior.”  @krinkle

• this paper extends it to show even experienced prolific editors finding negative communication about a revert as a major reason they leave. The authors intend to expand this metric to all Misplaced Pages
• Lastly, we should consider changing the publish function to run parts of ORES, so that the Editor can make the decisions to fix. Yes, Vandals will work out work arounds, but we can stop that Editor or Anon having access to the tool if they abuse it. Currently they can do the same thing. but it takes 5 minutes for NPP to give them an answer b]] (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sticky header

It would be very helpful if on mobile devices in portrait mode the website header, which includes the "Misplaced Pages" link and buttons for search, notifications, etc, had the CSS attribute "position: sticky;".

At the moment, on large pages users have to scroll right to the top of the page in order to search for another topic or access their watchlist or contributions. Most mobile devices in portrait mode have enough screen space to display such a small header permanently.

This is just an idea that I wanted to suggest. I don't spend much time editing Misplaced Pages these days and may not follow the discussion. If you'd like a response to any comments please ping me. Cheers. nagualdesign 13:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I like this idea, and I"m not quite sure if my idea built off of this would be possible but, in order to not impede article space I think that the header should sort of "collapse" into the top of the screen as the user is scrolling and after they've sat there for a bit without scrolling, it would come back again. What do you think of this idea @Nagualdesign:? ― Blaze The Wolf_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

What would be great, but I have no idea how to do it, is if the header moved just out of view when scrolling down and immediately came back in to view when scrolling upwards, like the top bar of the Chrome mobile browser. Position:sticky works fine though and is very simple to implement. nagualdesign 15:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I moved this from VPR as this isn't a ready execute proposal - ping to prior participants: @Nagualdesign and Blaze The Wolf: — xaosflux 14:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  _{I don't seem to have been pinged but I watch the page so I did notice the move anyway} ― Blaze The Wolf_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  _{Ping didn't work for me either. nagualdesign 15:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)}

• Mobile devices should already be in mobile view (Example random article in mobile view). Are you referring to the <header class="header-container header-chrome"> element? — xaosflux 14:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  Of course mobile devices viewing en.m.wikipedia.org are in mobile view. Sorry, I'm not sure what your point is. As for your question, I can't give you a definitive answer as I cannot look at the source code using this phone, but by "website header" I'm referring to the grey navigation bar at the very top of the page, which shows (from left to right) a menu icon, the "Misplaced Pages" logo, a search icon, notification icon, and user icon. nagualdesign 15:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  I just discovered that using the Chrome mobile browser you can view source code by prepending the URL with "view-source:". However, I could hardly make sense of most of it. In answer to your question I'd have to say I think so. nagualdesign 16:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  @SGrabarczuk (WMF), I think Web is already working on this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  That's true @WhatamIdoing although we're only building the sticky header for desktop. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

This Village Pump is for developing ideas, not for consensus polling. Rather than merely stating support or opposition to an idea, try to be creative and positive. If possible, suggest a better variation of the idea, or a better solution to the problem identified. Before posting an idea here, please read What Misplaced Pages is not to understand regular suggestions that will not be actioned12.249.218.202 (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• From what I can see so far, this would require a back-end change first (if you have a working personal CSS for this already - please point to the page that is successfully working) - as we certainly won't use a javascript hack for this (that is something that could be done as a personal userscript though). To request this be made available back-end, please file a feature request - you can model it off of phab:T283505 or one of its subtasks. — xaosflux 14:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Representation : Misplaced Pages Foundation Election Statistics

Do we need a better breakdown of the election statistics for the next WMF election? The 2021 election was very close (12 votes decided the 4th seat, and 212 separating first preferences for the 1st and 4th). Election irregularities didn't occur, but there was such a small turnout (6,873 votes) I must also explain that I am from Australia where election manipulation and irregularities (especially with STVs) are an artform, as we are "entirely peopled from criminals" to the point where thePublic Broadcasters election analyst is a national hero.

Irregularities I think could occur in a few areas 1/ Non-Editors (such as Foundation staff, external developers etc) can vote and could sway and there no is visibility of how many or for which candidate they voted. 2/ Audit. Statistics on irregular votes are not advised (votes are checked in the one week between the vote being complete and the announcement) and voters do not get confirmation of their vote. 3/ Group voting: Votes by Language edition or editor type were not advised for each candidate 4/ STV manipulation. STV voting only changed the vote for 4th place, But there are issues if

• Electors don't know enough candidates. The record in Australia is 110 candidates for 6 positions. And in our case this is made worse as there is no visibility of candidates for re-election performance.
• No criteria for a significant number of supporters to nominate a candidate.
• Low voter turnout. STV has not changed turnout, but voter confusion from some countries was reported as STV was unknown
• Candidates representing only 1 group

Overall, the issue is not misuse of cash or power, but the board being dis-functional or missing the skills the board asked for and identified was missing in . I raised similar issues on the election board. with JKoerner (WMF), but I have had more time to think now :-) I originally placed this one on the WMF page Wakelamp db (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC) Wakelamp db (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't need the Ninja Turtles to audit the WMF election, and we don't need baseless fear, uncertainty, and doubt about the results. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

WP is not a democracy, but suggesting that "a better breakdown of the election statistics for the next WMF election" is FUD is too far; FUD grows when there is lack of transparency.

I wrote that "Election irregularities didn't occur". To be 100 % clear excellent candidates ( @rosiestep @Victoria @pundit and lorentzus ) were elected fairly.

BUT

Nonprofits have particular risks

- unwilling to admit corruption due to donation fears,

- boards not having the necessary skills especially to do with finance and detection of corruptions,

- Staff capture (the organization being run for the management's benefit or pleasure) especially in the creation of profit-making linked companies, and

- Volunteer disaffection.

So, any easy ability for management to manipulate governance must be blocked. (The Ninja Turtles would also make poor auditors) Wakelamp db (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Another page of users with most edits

Would it be possible to have another page of users with the most edits? WaterflameIsAwesome (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean in addition to Misplaced Pages:List of Wikipedians by number of edits? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure. The lists are user-generated by third-party tools and not official. Nothing prevents other users from creating their own list. The only question is "primary topic". Which list gets called "List of Wikipedians by number of edits". One option is make it a dab page. It depends if both lists are equally as good but have different features. It might require a vote to see. -- GreenC 05:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Bot collation of questions on low-watched talk pages

In the discussion at WT:CSD#File talk pages which consist only of boilerplates, wikiproject tags, and/or text which has been copied to Commons Jo-Jo Eumerus commented that File talk page discussions are pretty common but they usually don't get an answer. to which Redrose64 replied Mainly because they only have one watcher - the person who created the discussion. This got me wondering about the feasibility of (probably) a bot that looked for new posts to pages with fewer than N (actively engaged?) watchers and produced a list (or lists?) of such pages so that editors know that the posts exist and can go and respond if required. I don't know what a sensible value of N would be.

To avoid false positives the bot should ignore posts that consist of solely adding things like WikiProject tags, old deletion discussion notices, {{Talk page header}}, {{Talk page of redirect}} and probably others (as well as redirects to these templates) - I guess experience will show others as well, so the list should be easily configurable. Maybe also excluding things like {{help me}} which already generate notifications elsewhere - indeed maybe we would want to restrict it to certain namespaces only (Talk: and File talk: definitely; maybe Misplaced Pages talk:, Help talk:, Template talk: and Category talk: ?).

Some of what it will find will possibly be spam or junk, but then we can just remove this sooner than we otherwise would. It would expose that these pages have few watchers, but this bot will effectively make them more watched than average negating any benefit to knowing that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this is a really good idea! CapitalSasha ~ talk 17:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The big issue is file talk posts on enwiki that are about Commons files - usually they can't be actioned here. A differentiated solution may be needed for those discussion page posts that are about Commons files, because they need to be actioned on Commons if anywhere. Perhaps we could ask the Commons folks if they are interested in a dedicated collation of all enwiki file talk page posts that concern Commons files? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Some will be able to be dealt with here, and some by editors here making edits at Commons, but even though some will require action from Commons admins I don't think that means a list here would be without value. I can certainly see the benefit of putting such comments on a separate list to comments about locally hosted files though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I like this idea. Another benefit could be that people post in the appropriate place, not posting where "there's more traffic" (but not necessarily more—or any—interest). That leaves discussions where they are relevant, and potentially, where others in the future will see them. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, I wonder what you think of phab:T295392. That would let you get a list of the discussions on pages you are interested in. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF) while that's interesting and likely very useful, it's not the same as what I have in mind here. That seems to be:

• Tell me when there are new discussions related to this list of things that I am interesting in

Whereas this is

• Tell me when there are new discussions on pages that not very many people are actively watching

The latter will include pages that nobody has expressed an interest in (files and redirects will often only have a single watcher - the creator/uploader, who may not have edited Misplaced Pages for years), no WikiProjects have indicated belongs to their topic area, are too new for most people to know exist, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

What is the size of the issue? Are there any way to get the size of the problem? (Maybe by first project they belong to, Article importance and whether it is a new user (< x edits say)??

What do people think are the root causes for Editors creating discussions on no-watched/Low importance pages?

{{Thryduulf}} You mentioned interests - The biggest interest groups are projects. Would an addition to the new project dashboard showed the number of outstanding unwatched discussions encourage them being answered?

{{Jo-Jo Eumerus}} Can you explain about why the Comments can't be actioned here? I don't know anything about commons, Wakelamp db (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Forget about "Commons", this is an issue that can arise on any little-watched talk page in any namespace. Second, a talk page question can be asked by any editor who ends up on a particular talk page, ranging from a genuinely curious reader who seeks clarification of something on the page or suggests a change to a WP:POINTy troll leaving an inappropriate remark. Sometimes articles on relatively obscure topics are created by editors who do little else in the encyclopedia and leave before a comment is added there. It's a good general cleanup project to address. BD2412 T 02:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thryduulf I think your suggested report is of crucial important for Editor retainment because it makes them feel listened to, not isolated, and their needs are being met. In general, I am against many reports that are not run JIT on Articles. Many reports are unvisited except by search engines, have no or few using them (stubs, categories), are sometimes have completeness issues (Category-Article lists), but in this case a report is needed.

Some other things you may wish to consider to minimize the amount of Talks to review -

• Prioritize new or returning editors
• Exclude Topics that are in action or marked as done (There are done and in progress templates and it could work like the topic subscribe)
• Excluding Topics that need no action (So we still need a done flag)
• Can we get the discussion editor to make a choice? I believe strongly that editors should have the same information. Why not tell them there are no active watcher? And why not and remove inactive editors from article watch lists"
• BOT created Topics - You would need to exclude, but do we need them at all?
• I love the idea of identifying interests, but how??
• Automation - Because of the size, maybe we need a tool with canned responses, a way of viewing a all the discussions and marking them done from Publish?
• Responsibility - Many monthly reports seem to have gigantic backlogs (categories missing, stubs ..) How do we ensure that it is actioned? Wakelamp db (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea to me. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Prevent basic errors getting into articles

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.

Misplaced Pages is based on the idea that it doesn't matter how poor your edit is; someone will fix it. In general, obvious vandalism is indeed fixed quite quickly. But edits that are well-intended but poor persist for years. Some of the most glaring issues that I frequently see include:

1. First sentences which are a pointless restatement of the article title
2. Bold text that does not correspond to the article title
3. Use of contractions and ampersands
4. Incorrectly capitalised section headings
5. Links within section headings
6. Links within bold-face reiterations of the article title
7. Misuse of /

There are of course many others. But it would be trivial to prevent or inhibit any of these basic errors from ever getting into articles. A simple edit filter could apply simple quality checks, and warn the user if their edit fails them.

I can think of any number of advantages to basic quality control, and not a single disadvantage. Interested to know what other people think. 51.6.138.90 (talk) 10:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The style guide Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style has discussions on MOS:AMP MOS:&, and Use of contractions and ampersands. They also give many exceptions such as AT&T and quotes containing contractions, Exceptions are what makes programming complicated. The disadvantage is that if you disallow such changes then an editor may not finish their edit, or worse quit Misplaced Pages Wakelamp db (talk) 12:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting disallowing anything. Rather, if one makes an edit that contains, for example, isn't, and the text is not within quotation marks. you would simply be warned that contractions should not be used, with a link given to the relevant part of the MOS. If there is some valid reason to use the contraction, you would just click save anyway. I can't remember how but I've certainly encountered edit filters with that behaviour before, where you can save the edit after a warning. 51.6.138.90 (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it would result in user experience issues. It certainly makes me mildly annoyed every time I trip an edit filter. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I would anticipate the user experience, if the filter were tripped, to be something like the following:

1. user who did not read the manual of style makes an edit including text like "It should be noted"
2. user is prevented from saving the edit immediately, with the reason displayed including a link to the MOS
3. user revises their edit, and is less likely to make a similar mistake in the future

How would you see it playing out? 51.6.138.90 (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages village pump
• Misplaced Pages proposals