Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

"WP:PROPOSE" redirects here. For propose for deletion page, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion requests.

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

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

The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting: Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals. You may also wish to search the FAQ. This page is for concrete, actionable proposals. Consider developing earlier-stage proposals at Village pump (idea lab). Proposed policy changes belong at Village pump (policy). Proposed speedy deletion criteria belong at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects. Proposed new articles belong at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Discussions or proposals which warrant the attention or involvement of the Wikimedia Foundation belong at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF). Software changes which have consensus should be filed at Phabricator. Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for nine days.

« Archives, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184

Dispense with "In popular culture" because there is no such thing.

Should Wikipedia continue to have sections titled "In popular culture? 20:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Executive summary: It's not 1887 anymore. "Popular culture" is just "culture". This is why we don't have commensurate "High culture" sections. It all runs together now, and "In popular culture" sections should be called something else -- "In other media" or "In general culture" or "Other uses and references" or whatever. I'm going to start doing that. You should too.

---

Extended exposition: The distinction between "high culture" and "popular culture" is so permeable to be no longer useful. In older times some people went only to the symphony and read Livy in the original Latin. And disdained or know nothing about folk songs and banjo music and boxing and Sherlock Holmes etc.

Nowadays, even rich people -- even old money rich -- and PhD's listen to, I don't know, Trent Reznor and Vivaldi's The Four Seasons and Leonard Cohen and read, I don't know, John Cheever or Bernard Cornwell as well as Livy and Schubert and Proust and so on. They just do.

Where does Horse Lords fit? Where does Aaron Copland fit? How about the Beatles, or John Updike? How about Picasso? Paul Robeson and Nobel laurate Bob Dylan? Yo Yo Ma and Eric Clapton? Ocean Vuong, Van Morrison, Walter Scott? Is Old Man River low culture, and Pachabel's Canon high?

Set me off was Do not go gentle into that good night. The "In popular culture" section references Doctor Who and Stravinsky and Rodney Dangerfield and Elliot del Borgo and John Cale and Matthew McConaughey and Ceri Richards and Iggy Pop and so on... if all that is "popular culture", what isn't?

I mean I could have maybe sorted all that into two sections, "In popular culture" and "In high culture" (or maybe "In obscure culture"), but that would be nonsensical. Instead I renamed the section. We don't have any guidance on that so I made up "Use and references in other works". Could have been something else.

(Also, FWIW, the term "In popular culture" makes some editors claw the draperies and call the maid for smelling salts. There's no point in triggering our bourgeois colleagues, so something less suggestive of the tenements is in order.)

"In popular culture" might belong in Snobopedia, but not here. I fully realize that making a rule changing stuff like is near impossible in this hidebound environment, so I'm not even suggesting a !vote, but I'll tell you what. I'm done with "In popular culture" and I'm not going to write that title for sections, and I aim to change them when I see them. That's my proposal: if you buy the argument, vote with your feet and do it too. If you don't, don't. Herostratus (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts, Herostratus. It bothers me when I see something like this and think, "well, yeah, why didn't I notice that myself (sooner, consciously)"? I believe I'll consider renaming such sections to something like "Notable cultural references" where it fits, when I see such things. Certainly something to think about. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 22:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

There are probably essays and maybe even guidelines about it. I label those sections "Influences", it's a form of notability. Something is "influential" when it has "influenced" significant works or people, making it notable, not a list of random trivia. -- GreenC 00:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Influences or (cultural) legacy should be in order. And I agree that this should be reserved to those which made a very significant impact on society, e.g. the Thompson submachine gun or the RMS Titanic. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's a one-size solution here, but I do agree that most sections that are labeled "in popular culture" can likely renamed to something more broad. What that is depends; if there's only a handful, such a list might fall under a Legacy or Influence section and not be sectioned off on its own, while longer sections may need something of its own section like "References in other works" as suggested. But I would say that if we are making a distinction between pop culture (the masses) and high culture (the elite), then there are likely cases of older works (thinking Shakespeare-type classics) where we are more likely documenting what is a high piece of culture being reused by the popular culture. I don't know of any immediate examples but I would not be surprised nor balk at an article called "Romeo & Juliet in popular culture". But again, I can't propose a hard-set rule in this area when this would be appropriate, so I would be hesitant to simply say "scrub all 'popular culture' use". --Masem (t) 01:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• I disagree, both in terms of the naming issue, and with the utility of content falling under such headings. The widespread use of the header indicates the intuitive understanding that people (including readers) have of the term, and is no more snobby than referring to popular music. Speaking of the readers, in terms of inclusion of such content, let's Give the People What They Want (to the extent that it can be cited to sources). BD2412 T 01:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • But there is a point that WP is not TV Tropes, and such sections often are kudzu for weak or unsourced assertions of pop culture, which we can read as being what people want. We are here to provide educational material for the readers, and to that end we focus often on content that the average reader doesn't want but what a slim minority will want. This is perhaps due to many users expecting WP to provide certain types of content, thinking it a one-stop shop, that are simply outside our bounds established in policy. Hence we really need to be careful if we try to craft policy or guideline around readers' preferences. --Masem (t) 02:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Considering that our most viewed pages for the past week include The Suicide Squad and Jungle Cruise, and that our most viewed topics routinely include pop culture and entertainment topics, I suspect that it more than "a slim minority" who have an interest in this sort of content. BD2412 T 02:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
      • I mean that if you take the type of content we want editors to focus on based on what we are not per WP:NOT, that type of content tends to cater to a slim segment of the readers but that's because that's the key academic content of an encyclopedia. I'm sure those movies had huge page views but I also would suspect that the bulk of readers were only reading them for the plot summary, cast list, and reception, and little about development/filming/etc. (which is the more academic core of those articles). That type of popular content is basically one step removed from what IMDB or TV Tropes offers, and while can offer it, its there to augment the more academic facets which typically do not interest the majority of readers but are still good reference for some. --Masem (t) 02:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• I think that we are ultimately just talking about the title of a subsection, and it really doesn't matter to me which title is used, but I will say the cookie cutter "in popular culture" gets old after awhile, and the titles that have been suggested as alternative options are refreshing, but in the end, I really don't mind which title is used as long as we continue to add the pertinent information. Huggums537 (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  I also want to add that the logic of the comments suggesting disposal of "In popular culture" for no sound reason other than because it invites trivia, and list cruft etc. totally escapes me. This is the logical equivalent of saying, x could be used for something silly, stupid, bad, or evil; therefore we should dispose of x. Proponents of this type of logic usually like to insert some kind of exaggerated example of where this has occurred with x. The two problems facing this type of logic is that it completely ignores all of the places where it has not occurred with x, and x has worked out just fine. The second problem is that it overlooks the obvious fact that x can always be used for something silly, stupid, bad, or evil, so that in and of itself really isn't justification enough, otherwise we would be able to simply dispose of anything and everything we just don't like, and can replace with x. Huggums537 (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  I also want to add an example: Let's say x is Wikipedia lists. Someone could argue that lists invite cruft and should be disposed of. They might provide an example of an exceptionally bad list to prove their point, while ignoring the hundreds of good ones. They might argue some lists could be used to damage Wikipedia, and we should eliminate lists all together, while glossing over the fact that we have a process in place to eliminate individual lists that might be damaging. Is the possibility of a thing being used for the wrong purpose sufficient grounds alone for the disposal of that thing as a solitary rationale? I hope not, and I hope this is a good illustration... Huggums537 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  Another fine example of this wrong thinking is that there are way more than enough documented cases of road rage where a vehicle has been intentionally used to harm people or property that proponents of this flawed logic might argue we should dispose of vehicles all together or put some kind of restrictions on them to prevent people from using them in such destructive ways. However, this overlooks the overwhelming majority of evidence that most vehicles are not used in destructive ways, and it also ignores that the minority of them that are used this way are currently being handled by other processes we already have in place, making a blanket ban and more restrictions not only redundant, but an un-necessary burden on the moral majority. Huggums537 (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

• WP:IPC does encourage editors to use a section name other than "In popular culture", though that is just an essay. Personally I don't especially care what the section is named; the content is of greater concern to me. I'm not sure what this proposal's goal is: to make calling a section "In popular culture" a warnable offense? To suggest an update to the MoS? If everyone agrees that IPC is poor section-naming, what's the practical result? As far as concerns about the content, I would say that WP:IPCV and the associated RfC were a godsend as they provided bright-line guidance that IPC items require independent sourcing as a means of establishing the items' significance for inclusion purposes. DonIago (talk) 02:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Usually the term / section name just serves as an entre / coatrack for fandom or promotional items that don't belong in the article. I don't want yet another rule but it would be good to put a Scarlet Letter painted on that phase as being such, or discouraging it's use.North8000 (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• In my experience a section heading mentioning "popular culture" generally proceeds incredibly useless and off topic information. I think Randall said it best in his xkcd comic. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice one!  :-) :-) North8000 (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• • Drawing from the above comments by JohnFromPinckney and Blake Gripling, "Cultural influence" may be a better header. It implies the subject is the topic itself, rather than the subject being the "popular culture" influenced by it. This may help reduce the propensity for off-topic information. CMD (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

    If it fits (it often does) I sometimes use "In fiction". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Subcultures still exist, and they have various levels of prestige. I think it's funny that all the examples of how culture has blended together are stuff my middle-aged dad would talk about at a party but don't include any band I listen to or any author I've read (and I read Latin). This of course isn't a coincidence because "popular culture" is stuff middle aged dads talk about at parties, not the whole extent of cultural experience. Perhaps the popular culture section includes people you know because that's the point? You know them because they're in popular culture---because they're popular? If you didn't recognize someone on those lists, now that would be remarkable. Idk, this whole thing reads like you're projecting your cultural experience as if it's universal when it remarkably isn't. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with BD2412 - you're right that our current use doesn't match the old definition of "popular culture". However it does match the way the term is used by the majority of people (and sources) now, and thus is a reasonable term. Nosebagbear (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Drawing a distinction between "high culture" and "modern popular culture" or whatever you want to call them isn't really that important. The point is to stop endless lists of off-topic trivia. Reyk _YO! 08:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the idea....what are we proposing to put in practice though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Reminds me of the now-deleted article about Miami Vice in popular culture. I mean sure, the series is indeed iconic for perpetuating popular 80s stereotypes, but imo such cultural impact is best described in a "Legacy" section. WP:MILPOP handled it better like in the Thompson submachine gun where its significance in pop culture is well-integrated into the history section rather than as a listcruft of all known instances of where the Tommy gun was used. A separate popular culture article wouldn't hurt if it is well-written in pose and there is exceptional proof that the subject gained notoriety e.g. Adolf Hitler. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• "In popular culture" is now itself a phrase ingrained in (popular) culture, perhaps our most infamous section title. As such, I don't think much misunderstanding or literalism about the connotations of "popular culture" is in the minds of our readers. Such sections are almost always bad, and should either be removed as fancruft or adapted into a proper "Legacy" or "Impact" section (such as Black Mirror#Cultural impact) that doesn't aim just to enumerate random references but to convey the scope and significance of the work on future art or the public consciousness. — Bilorv (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'd say "Controversies" is our most infamous section heading... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• The wording of the section heading can make quite a difference. Headings such as "In popular culture" or even worse "References in popular culture" attract editors who seem to think it's important to add a bare mention of the subject in episode 12 season 23 of their favourite show. Much less likely to attract that sort of thing is a section headed "Cultural impact" or "Notable cultural developments". I'd like to see us much more strongly discourage the old "In popular culture" wording. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• ”In popular culture” is just another way of saying: “Trivia”. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• In popular culture is a useful honeytrap for crap that doesn't belong in the article. That's its main value. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• What Jpgordon said. To the best of my knowledge, its origin on Wikipedia was Gunpowder Plot in popular culture, and (as the person who originally suggested it), I can confirm that the intent in that case was quite deliberately to restrict the edit-warring over every TV show that mentions Guy Fawkes to a single section where people could fight it out without disrupting the main body of the article. It sounds patronizing, but it does serve a valid purpose; IPC sections and subpages means people don't try in good faith to rewrite entire articles just because a movie on the topic comes out or it gets mentioned on Star Trek.

  I have no attachment to "in popular culture" as a name, if anyone can think of something better. It's literally the first name that occurred to me and was subsequently picked up on and copied by other articles; it has no particular significance. ‑ Iridescent 14:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Wait.. you are the one who started IPC? This is notable Wikipedia history, given how influential it has been (for better or worse!). If you don't mind, this should be in a "history" section at WP:IPC -- GreenC 15:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_content#History -- GreenC 15:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I thought I'd coined the phrase, but on doing some digging there were already a few IPC pages existing prior to that—the oldest I can find on a very quick dig is Librarians in popular culture (a candidate for "Wikipedia's worst article"). I do believe the Gunpowder Plot one was the first one set up explicitly to keep the IPC froth off the main topic, though. (I am responsible for "civility police", "indefinite not infinite" and "ANI flu"; my footnote in Wikipedia's history is secure.) ‑ Iridescent 16:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

The oldest deleted page titled "...in popular culture" - where I can't find evidence that it was moved there later, like, say, Evocation in popular culture, created at Conjuration and moved there in 2010 - is Teaching in popular culture, created 17:50, 29 April 2004. The oldest existing article with such a title is Adolf Hitler in popular culture, originally created at Hitler in popular culture at 15:20, 2 October 2004‎. (There may be older pages that started with IPC titles and were later moved to non-IPC titles, but that's laborious to search for.) The phrase was likely used in section headers even earlier. —Cryptic 18:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

IIRC these started showing up as sections in articles in early 2004, but I wouldn’t be surprised if someone dug up a diff from late 2003, see for example 1 2 3; even Exploding whale had one 4. Eventually those sections grew so much they were spun off into separate articles to avoid overwhelming the page, indeed some comprised the majority of an articles content at the time of spin-off e.g. 5. The whole process took place more or less organically; then as now people often just copied what they saw others doing. In hindsight, in popular culture is probably not best, but a lot of the time the thought process was just to be bold and assume that it would be improved upon later.

In fact people have been trying alternatives for some time now 6, see also, Cultural influence of Plato's Republic, Venus in culture, Cultural references to Hamlet , Women warriors in literature and culture, Synesthesia in fiction etc. Doubtless someone with a bit more free time available will be able to find other formulations in current use. Regards, 81.177.3.8 (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Might I suggest Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_In_popular_culture pending this RFC? @GreenC Shushugah (he/him • talk) 02:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

What I was thinking was using "Cultural influence" or "Cultural allusions" or maybe "Cultural influence and allusions". in WP:VG, we don't have "in pop culture" sections but just "Legacy" sections instead.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oh but now here's a thought regarding the content rather than the name of these sections. There's plusses and minuses, but to my mind, the purpose of these sections is to indicate how well known the entity is. So, let's take "Do not go gentle into that good night"... is this an obscure poem like say "The Legend of Novgorode" or thousands of others, or is it more well known? That's a very important point for the reader to know! But we can't just assert it. If we have a source saying "This poem is super well known!" fine, but first of all we usually don't, and second even if we do it's just one guy asserting it.

But... remember Writing 101: show, not tell. Well, Do not go gentle into that good night#Use and references in other works shows very well that the poem's reasonably famous. Important info. Even minor examples can help with that. If somebody says a line in passing on some HBO show, that that's another demonstration that it's floating around in the culturespace, unlike say Trilce.

But then: as we all know, these sections can grow out of control, too. So here's what I've tried, and I think it maybe works OK: Make the "References in other works" short but dump the excess examples down into either the Notes or the References sections, where they are they are still there but don't bother anybody. At Anyone for tennis? I gave some examples (basically the bluelinked ones), then added "And so forth" with the ref for that containing all the extra non-bluelinked examples. You can also use a Note instead. Reasonable approach? Herostratus (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think that works particularly well— feels like hiding cruft that shouldn’t really be in the article. But I have no problem with ‘in popular culture’ sections at all, when put together properly. This whole discussion seems, to me, a waste of energy that would be more productively expended in other endeavors, such as writing content. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah how about not telling other people how to spend their volunteer hobby time maybe. I've got 500 articles created and many thousands of article edits, how about you. Herostratus (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

…I’m just suggesting that I don’t think this is the most productive thread Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

since you asked, in the past five years since I began editing, I’ve created over 300 articles and made over 40,000 edits and written several featured content (incl one fa with an in popular culture section) and had almost 100 dyks. In that time, you’ve created 156 articles and made about 11,000 edits. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to nicely ask to stay on topic and remain civil. And if you feel its a waste of time, you can contribute to the articles you want. it's ok to not find a topic productive. Others don't feel the same way.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

? I don’t see the problem with my conduct. I said what I thought, herostratus replied to say ‘yeah, no’— which I understand— and I answered his explicitly posed question. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Since it has come up, I have over 1,800,000 edits, with over a million being article edits. I have created over 6,000 articles. To reiterate my earlier position, I think "in popular culture" sections are fine. If you want to police them for proper citation to sources, go ahead. If you want to structure them into prose, have at it. Trying to remove them altogether is counter to the information-sharing function of the encyclopedia, and is indeed a waste of volunteer time. BD2412 T 20:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• Whatever such sections should be called, they should not encourage every casual reader to think, "Hey, this list doesn't include the fact that in the third episode of the fifth season of Family Man, it is revealed that the neighbor's cat is named Crookshanks." Calling them "In popular culture" seems to do exactly that. —valereee (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • This also brings up that, it's also the list format that many of these take. Lists "look" easy to add onto so draw in every trivial mention. It is far better to try to encapsulate how a topic has entered popular culture by prose, if possible, as I've found new editors tend to be a bit more adverse to trying to alter that and making a mistake. --Masem (t) 17:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    • It does draw in every trivial mention, but that also means it's drawing in first posts by readers, sometimes. That's key. We get them to add a reference to say something the saw on American Dad. That's the start. Then we sloooowly reel them into our dysfunctional little group here, and one day they wake up and they're writing articles about ninth-century Inner Mongolian minor poets. But by then it's too late for them to rejoin the world of normal people. BWAHAHAHAHA Herostratus (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

      OTOH, when that edit gets reverted five minutes later with an annoyed edit summary of "rem trivia"...the bait is doing its job, the reel not so much. :D —valereee (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

      While lists are a good way for first edits of new editors, 99 times out of 100, when added to a pop culture section, it is unsourced. Which if unchecked creates a self-replicating problem. --Masem (t) 20:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

      I think this gets well off-topic, but it's not specific to IPC: we have a huge problem because no-one's first 100 edits are good, but 100 bad edits in 2006 is alright because at least it creates something new, and 100 bad edits in 2021 is not fine because it makes existing alright content worse. So whatever you do is wrong and you'll get reverted and scared off the website. Or you don't get reverted initially, but someone finally notices you and tells you everything you've spent many hours on is wrong, and now you get scared off the website but you're also in tears. My best answer to this so far is "people should start off at Fandom and then come here when they're already used to the website design and some of the culture". — Bilorv (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

      Oh $deity no don't send people to Fandom for a good experience. It's as good as testwiki for learning Wikitext I suppose, but does absolutely nothing for learning to edit in a collaborative environment. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

      With the levels of hostility expressed to both newcomers and old hands, there's not much collaborative environment in Wikipedia either. — Bilorv (talk) 12:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

    I think that is an excellent point. Lists absolutely beg people to add to them. Maybe such sections shouldn't usually be lists? —valereee (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

• I think that most of the posts are getting away from the main point, which is that the word "popular" shouldn't be used here. For example opera and ballet are not considered "popular", but mentions in such are just as valid or invalid as mentions in Hollywood films or pop music or computer games. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• This is a fairly interesting point, and I would add my voice to those that more or less hate these sections as they almost inevitably become long lists of unsourced cruft. I'm not sure changing the name will solve that core problem, but I'm nt opposed to the idea of trying it. My personal approach is to just remove anything without a source since that's pretty basic, and also remove mentions based on one throwaway line from a tv show, and maybe add things like hidden comments or edit notices if they persist. (Not that it always works, it's been over a decade of trying get people to stop posting that Commander Riker is "from" Valdez, Alaska). Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
• Where there are also things like opera & novels, I tend to use headings like "Cultural references", which might also cover a whole themed episode of say South Park, but not a passing reference. Johnbod (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• I have no real opinion on the title discussion, "popular culture" is intuitive if not dictionary perfect. Like many above I too generally dislike these sections, principally because they are usually an unsourced dumping ground for passing mentions in an single episode of a sitcom or the like. I think a good start may be to make MOS:POPCULT more succinct and punchy, emphasising the 2015 RfC, possibly elevating the sourcing requirements from that RfC into a guideline itself. Cavalryman (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC).
• I suggest "Society and culture" as a title (used in WP:MEDMOS) which I think does a better job of reflecting this. What's popular culture now is usually not even in 10 or 20 time (which are now timespans relevant to Wikipedia!) In general I also find that sections "In popular culture" are almost always WP:TRIVIA and could be completely blanked.Tom (LT) (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to a change (although hopefully this isn't a decision that is being taken here). On individual pages I'd guess that 'In popular culture' sections are themselves quite popular, have likely been a Wikipedia mainstay since 2001, and have a name which is both extremely recognizable and a more-than-adequate descriptor. On stand-alone article pages the idea of changing this ramps the "Huh?" factor up a level or six. Important pages such as World War I in popular culture, World War II in popular culture, Apollo 11 in popular culture and dozens if not hundreds more have educated readers about cultural events which have themselves educated the public since their inception. A good discussion, but let's leave it at that. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• I don't know. Who cares. This seems like something that should be handled on an article-by-article basis.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• I think that the underlying issue is this. The normal practice is that In the normal inclusion / exclusion decisions are made based on a multitude of factors including degree of relevance and degree of importance to the topic. Headings should be for material that inherently belongs in the article. Certain headings distort that process towards bringing in material that would not have otherwise been included. Headings like "in popular culture" are of that type. Particularly promotional or fandom items. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not going to talk about whether or not we should have these sections in the first place, because that doesn't seem to be the point of this RfC. But I don't think most people intend a negative implication when they're talking about popular culture. I also agree with Randy Kryn's reasoning. Clovermoss (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• The existence of the article Mermaids in popular culture is presumably what allows the article Mermaid to pursue a purely zoological examination of these alluring beasts. The former article includes such pop culture phenomena as Zemlinsky's Die Seejungfrau; which seems only right as Die Seejungfrau has been put out on at least ten commercial recordings, AFAIK five times as many as there have been of Tubular Bells. -- Hoary (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose any across-the-board deprecation of "in popular culture" sections, which to me is where you place mentions of snippets of musical pieces heard in video games, TV shows, etc., instead of discussing modalities, orchestration, and influences (which probably fairly applies to the Dylan poem referenced above), etc. The lack of sourcing in such sections is notorious, but that's for editors of individual articles to decide how much original reporting to let in. Dhtwiki (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The lack of sourcing in such sections is notorious, but that's for editors of individual articles to decide how much original reporting to let in. We already decided that; the answer is "none," and we wrote that up on a core content policy page called WP:No original research, which is global consensus that editors of individual articles cannot change. Levivich 14:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I tend to let plausible, innocuous statements stand, not to violate policy but in the hope that other editors will come along and find sources for them. Leaving unsourced a statement that a subway's door-closing chime is inspired by a piece by Handel isn't at the same level as, say, leaving an unsourced statement alleging criminal wrongdoing. If left unsourced, even the innocuous statements may eventually be swept away by more deletionist editors; and I won't object. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecating the term 'in popular culture'. It's merely one of several acceptable titles for such sections/articles, and I see no need for any new rules. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate such sections. Listing every time X appears in fiction (or popular culture, or whatever) is what TV Tropes does. As I said in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space stations and habitats in fiction: If there is sufficient coverage in WP:Reliable sources to write a prose article about X in fiction/popular culture/whatever then such a separate article should exist (I don't think this is a terribly tall order – see e.g. eco-terrorism in fiction and space stations and habitats in fiction, which—full disclosure—were both rewritten as prose articles by me), and if there isn't sufficient coverage to do that then we shouldn't have a "in popular culture" section in the main article about X. We should never just enumerate examples of X in fiction/popular culture/whatever. In general, I quite agree with the essay WP:CARGO—fiction is not fact and collecting raw data does not produce analysis. TompaDompa (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • You are iVoting in the wrong discussion, TompaDompa. This is just about the changing of the section title, "In popular culture", not about whether the sections should exist or not. (That is for a whole different discussion.) GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not at the wrong discussion, I'm just proposing a more radical solution – one that would cut the Gordian Knot, so to speak. The text at T:CENT says Should articles continue to have sections titled "in popular culture"? My answer is no—not because the title is bad, but because having such sections is. TompaDompa (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose deprecating the term 'in popular culture'. Like it or not, this content is going to continue to be added to the articles, and we have to put this junk somewhere, and the un-cited and trivia can then be easily deleted from these sections. Now, someone start a discussion about whether these sections should even continue to exist and things will get quite interesting. GenQuest ^"scribble" 07:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I don't understand your reasoning for the opposition. You just commented that this discussion isn't about removal of these sections, but you used that very reason for that. What do you mean by "we have to put this junk somewhere". Would it hurt the article if we don't?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I am against the change of the title of these sections. If we are going to have them, they should be consistant. (That was what this discussion is about.)

With that said, however, I don't think the existence of these sections is particularly helpful or needed. Actual, non-trivial, referenced information regarding the article(s) subject(s) should be in the article body where their presence is explained in relation to the subjct, not tossed in at the end of an article with no clear indication of why it is important to an understanding of the subject that they must actually be there. But that is an issue that has not yet been advanced by anyone, not this proposal. And to answer your question, Blue Pumpkin Pie no, as far as I am concerned, it doesn't hurt the article if we don't put/leave the junk in, it improves it. But, junk will just continue to reappear without that alternate discussion taking place some day. GenQuest ^"scribble" 03:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

break

So I'm seeing kind of three questions:

1) There's the question of whether sections should even exist' at the end of articles that have things "In Joyce Carol Oates's 2000 novel Blonde, the character of The Ex-Athlete is based on DiMaggio" and "In Seinfeld, Season 3, episode 1 "The Note, Kramer spots DiMaggio in a Dinky Donuts" and "DiMaggio appears in Harvey Comics' Babe Ruth Sports Comics (August 1949)"

2) There's the question of, if they do continue to exist, (and they will) how should they be named (the original and basic question of this thread).

3) And then there's also always the eternal the question of, if they do exist, how to curate? Should stuff like the first item above (important character in a serious novel) be in them and stuff like the second (passing mention in a vulgar and witless, but very popular, TV program) or the third (cover appearance in a long forgotten and lost children's comic) not? (And other questions of details.) And what practical procedures might be used to curate them?

So, for the first question, there are a lot of decent arguments either way, but as a practical matter, come on. We're always going to have these sections. It's entirely legit to express your opinion for/against them, but it's not going to change anything. So moving on.

For the third, well the current procedure is for editors -- driveby anon readers often enough -- to keep adding stuff (some good, some marginal, a whole lot silly; some well ref'd, some poorly ref'd, some unref'd) and for other editors to come across them, mutter "oh my God" under their breath and trim them (or even delete them), and for people to occasionally argue about it, since ultimately it's a matter of opinion how to curate. That's kind of kludging along (like a lot of the Wikipedia!), but it's OK, and I honesty don't think there's a better way. It's alright. It works OK. The project is not going to collapse over this. I can't imagine any rules that could be put in place ("No more than ten items" or "No refs to non-bluelinked sources" or whatever).

For the second, that's the question.

• Should these sections continue to be named "In popular culture" as is usual (altho far from universal)?
• If not, should they mostly be named one other single name, or let 1000 flowers bloom?

I just don't think there's any way to make a rule. There is the general practice of naming them "In popular culture", and rules are to codify common practice, so there could be a formal guideline made to that effect, such that someone could come along and rename your "In art and literature" to "In popular culture" and have the high ground. But I mean that's not going to happen. You're not going to get even 60% of a large group to agree to that. So just forget it. Trying to make a rule to have the sections be named some other thing is forget it squared.

It would be preferable to have a (generally common) name. As we do for "Early life" and "Personal life" "Discography" and "See also" etc. That's a good point. And they only possible generally common name is "In popular culture", barring a long-term sea change. So it's fine for individual editors to keep doing that.

For my part, personally, in my personal opinion it just sticks in my craw. In my article, I don't want to put "Chaucer says this..." and "Juan Ruiz de Alarcón says that..." under popular culture. Yes they're in the vulgar tongue, and yes in their time they were for the common people, but I mean not anymore. Mostly people only read them in college classes. Few people say "Pick me up a guilty-pleasure novel, Jackie Collins or Cervantes or Melville or something like that; I'm just not in the mood for Boethius today". They just don't. Chaucer and Richard III (1699 play) are closer to Terance and Quintilian than to Nicholas Sparks or Tom Clancy, n'est-ce pas? It's just incorrect. It's misleading the reader. I don't want to do that, so for my part I'm not going to.

So... different names in different articles for sections that are pretty much the same content? Oh well. Least bad option IMO. Herostratus (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose deprecating the Popular Culture sections. That is the name that Wikipedia has had for those sections, and usually they are useful additions to the encyclopedia. In cases where they are silly or useless, we can get into ugly edit-wars that go to WP:ANI and keep the tone of WP:ANI a little less heavy. That's only half humorous. But the sections are useful and the name is as good as anything else. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
• Deprecate the sections as WP:UNDUE/WP:OR. When writing about the topic "Foo," what we're supposed to be doing is summarizing WP:RS about Foo. If the RS state that Foo was mentioned on The Simpsons, then yes, that should be included in our article, probably in a section called "Impact" or "Legacy" or something like that. But if no RS mentions it, and an editor adds to the Wikipedia article that Foo was mentioned on The Simpsons (or in a song lyric, or as part of a plot of a book, or whatever), then that's WP:UNDUE and WP:OR because it's including something in the Wikipedia article Foo that isn't mentioned in any of the RSes about Foo. Anything not mentioned in the Foo RSes doesn't belong in the Foo Wikipedia article at all. Levivich 14:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• I seriously doubt that changing the typical name for these sections would stop them from accumulating cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
• Meh. There are probably far more important things to be doing right now, this feels very navel-gazey. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose change This is a solution looking for a problem. There is nothing wrong with the phrase "in popular culture"; everyone knows what it means. I don't see any good reason to change it. Mlb96 (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support change. I just had to wipe out the entire "In Popular Culture" section in When Johnny Comes Marching Home because of a mix of WP:UNDUE, WP:OR and WP:UNSOURCED issues. I suspect that renaming the sections will reduce the affinity for people adding random trivia. I would also lean towards User:Levivich's position of a general depreciation, but that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 07:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support change This is not, unlike what some claim, a "solution in search of a problem". The problem is very real; and you don't need a particularly acute sense of what is encyclopedic and what is not to figure that out - even xkcd gets it. There are some decent examples of sections which appropriately deal with the cultural impact of something; for ex. this (which is half decent) or this (probably one of the better examples). However, far too often, it looks just like unrelated notices of appearance, almost sillier than the xkcd comic I link as a parody earlier. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Popular culture is a thing. We have an article on it but it wasn't invented on Wikipedia as there is scholarship going back long before. As for the archetypal IPC section or article, that's a thing too. The main thing that's not clear to me is who updates such sections and why. Is it done by regular editors, specialist gnomes or the general public? Anyway, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and this seems to be one of the consequences. So it goes. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I think that In Popular Culture sections can be appropriate if (1.) the thing is actually significant for its role in popular culture and (2.) the section is a succinct summary that gives a general overview and names only the most noteworthy works. The Empire State Building article does a really good job of the latter. In practice however, most In Popular Culture sections are just indiscriminate lists of times that really famous or significant things appeared in works of fiction; many of these listings either lack sources or are sourced solely to the fictional work that the article topic appears in. Honestly, I think any In Popular Culture section that consists solely of a bullet pointed list can be safely removed without negatively impacting the article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I oppose depreciation, but I'd support considering a new name. "In culture", shorter, will do fine. What's popular is debatable anyway.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

So is what's "culture", "literature" etc. I think we must deal with each article sep94.44.112.244 (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal by CaptainEek, ft. Baby Yoda

• Proposal: In general, our "In pop culture" sections are the worst parts of articles. Occasionally, they are actually useful. But usually they are an agglomeration of OR and are 9/10 times trivia. I think the substantive change that we could implement is in effect a meta-notability requirement. I suggest The content of "In popular culture" sections, or similar sections, must have been discussed in reliable secondary sources which specifically link the cultural item to the subject. These sources must be focused on the subject, NOT the cultural item. Take for example the subject of "Bone broth", and you wish to include mention of how Baby Yoda in The Mandalorian drank some. An appropriate source would be "The Illustrated Catalogue of Soup", which is a secondary source focusing on soups. Should the Catalogue of Soup mention how Baby Yoda famously drinks some, then it is fair game for a popular culture section. By contrast, an article in Polygon reviewing the latest episode of the Mandalorian is NOT an appropriate source for a popular culture section on the "Bone broth" page, because it is not focused on the subject, which is soup related. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  I used this as one of the criteria to delete parkour in popular culture (the other was just "have an RS"). Izno (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  CaptainEek, but the Polygon article is also relevant to the subtopic of "popular culture", which is what the main subject of IPC is all about, and if it mentions how Baby Yoda drank the bone broth, then the main topic of the article now becomes relevant to the subtopic as it relates to popular culture as well. There are more topics to consider staying focused on besides just the main topic since many articles contain subtopics (some of which are far removed from the main topic, IPC sections being a good example of this) and so opening the door for a narrow view that says content within subtopics must ignore the relevance to that subtopic and focus on only the main topic is generally a bad idea. Huggums537 (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support the hell out of this. GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support - Donald Albury 15:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal that contradicts set guidelines that clearly dictate notability shall not apply to content within articles. See WP:NCC WP:NNC. Not only does this proposal attempt to apply notability to content within articles, it also attempts to apply it to the value of reliable sources as well, which is something I think we should have another guideline clearly dictating doesn't apply to sources either. The purpose of notability is for determining if a subject warrants having an article, not for nitpicking over trivial details of subject matter content or determining value of sources. It tells you that in the very first and second sentence of the notability guideline. Wikipedia has gone wildly out of control with "notability mania" for far too long, and it's time to stop the madness and think about what we are doing. Huggums537 (talk) 07:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  NCC is a naming convention, not sure what you may have intended to link. As WP:N indicates, notability can be and is used as an inclusion criteria for lists, and we've already had an RfC establishing sourcing standards for IPC content. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, I meant to link to WP:NNC. You can see how I might have got the links confused as they are rather similar. I will strike the other link and correct it now that you brought it to my attention. As for the list criteria, it is the exception that can be, but does not have to be, not the rule. Notability does not apply to the vast majority of article content as I have pointed out in both the main paragraph of WP:N, the now corrected link I provided earlier, and in the nutshell of WP:N as well as all throughout it. This exists as an actual rule, not an optional exception that may or may not be such as is the case with the list criteria... Huggums537 (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  Although the proposer has framed this as a notability-related idea, the proposal itself is not rooted solely in that policy; the reference to sources on the subject can also be understood as related to due weight. If no reliable sources on the subject discuss a particular IPC mention, it follows that our article also would not. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, of course I agree if there are no reliable sources to support an IPC mention, an article should not, but that is not the WP:DUE policy this proposal is asking us to follow. Rather, the proposal is asking us to take two sources that do in fact both discuss a particular IPC mention, and come to our own conclusions about how reliable they are based upon notability in relation to the subject. This actually has nothing to do with due weight at all since we are still talking about the very same IPC mention that would otherwise be allowed into the article no matter which source is used, because you can't say, "I'm removing this content per DUE because the source isn't "notable", but then turn around and put the EXACT same content in per DUE with a different source that you have concluded is "notable". That's not how DUE works. You don't get to play both sides of the field. DUE doesn't apply to sources any more than notability does, it applies to article content. Huggums537 (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  The "notability" framing was part of the intro, but the proposal itself does not mention that concept; it discusses sourcing. DUE is entirely based on sourcing, because the idea of DUE is that we represent things proportionally to their representation in sources. In that context, it's absolutely appropriate that different sourcing would change whether and how we include something in an article. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, but this proposal never was talking about representing things proportionally to their representation in sources as DUE was intended either. Therefore, it runs the risk of damaging the current notability guideline by weakening it through setting precedents which go against it. Huggums537 (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how it could accomplish that? We make decisions about including or not including content within articles all the time. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, well because the proposal itself actually does mention the notability concept considering the fact it requires content must now be sourced with reliable secondary sources, and not just mere mentions, but focused on the topic. Sounds very much like same requirements for articles being applied to content against notability. Setting a standard against existing guideline is what opens that can of worms... Huggums537 (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  But "secondary" is not a consideration only in discussions of notability; it's a pretty fundamental part of WP:NOR. And the need for secondary sourcing in this area specifically has already been established by RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, as explained before, this isn't the same thing as your previous discussion though you are desperately wanting it to be. The old idea of needing secondary sourcing to include IPC entries is now being superseded by this new idea that IPC entries not only require secondary sourcing, but they now also require notability standards to apply to both the sources and the content being added, which is against current guidelines. Further, we are being asked to believe that it is ok to remove an entry per DUE presumably because the "bad" source holds a minority view, only to have the exact same entry reinstated per DUE because the "better" source now holds a majority view? This specific discussion about "secondary" is for sure a consideration about notability not DUE or NOR unless you want want to talk about the original research editors might be using to determine which sources they have concluded warrant a minority vs. majority view for the exact same content? Huggums537 (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  We will need to agree to disagree on the interpretation of the proposal. I see it as a reasonable conclusion drawn from existing policy and precedent. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support Good idea. De728631 (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support This is the "directional relevance test" that prevents the mention of, e.g., hundreds of Pokemon on taxon pages, but doesn't argue against the mention of taxa on Pokemon pages. The connection is relevant one way but not the other, and that is normally reflected in the available sources. It's actually a rather common sense rule, and as such in wide practical application even if not codified. Let's codify it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

An illustration, just this minute reverted from Roe deer#Culture: In Hiawatha Longfellow depicts his hero killing a "roebuck" on the shores of Lake Superior, quite a feat since the roebuck only lives in Eurasia. Leaving aside the smart-ass tone and and the lack of sourcing - I think any rule precluding this kind of thing is quite obviously useful. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Elmidae, sure that's a good example, and I would support a proposal for lack of sourcing in IPC, but we don't really need one since you have just proved it can be done without it, and that is also not what this proposal is about at all... Huggums537 (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

That's why I said "leaving aside" these issues. The point is that the poem is irrelevant to the species, whereas the species may well be relevant to the poem (if you want to discuss how much natural history knowledge Longfellow put into his work or whatever). The requirement should be to demonstrate that relevance. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Elmidae, the species might very well be relevant to the poem, and the poem might not be directly relevant to the species itself, but it might be relevant to the species as it is related to the world "in popular culture", which is why it is in that particular section to begin with. I agree the smart ass tone and lack of sourcing are problematic, but again, existing policy provides that sourcing could have been applied, and the smart ass tone part removed, or the entire thing removed as you proved. This proposal has good intentions, but is ultimately more harm than good. Huggums537 (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, the above mentioned about directly and indirectly relevant is another reason the proposal doesn't make much sense, since the proposal is asking that all content in IPC sections be directly related to the subject of the article, rather than the subtopic of the IPC section, which kinda defeats the whole purpose of the section in the first place. This isn't "directional" at all, and is actually impossible to be since we are not just talking about comparing the relevance of some random content to the topic (or vice versa), but rather the relevance of that content to the IPC section as well, which is another topic within the main topic. This proposal is essentially saying that article content is no longer allowed to have any relevance to the subtopic of the very IPC section it might be included in, but it must have direct relevance to the main topic exclusive of the relevance to the subtopic it sits in. Does that really sound like a sensible solution? Huggums537 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support for this or something like it. Paul August ☎ 23:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support, Elmidae has articulated my thoughts exactly. Cavalryman (talk) 05:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC).
• Two suggestions - I want to support this, but have two suggestions.
  1. These sources must be focused on the subject, NOT the cultural item - might modify this to be similar to the way we talk about notability, which is to say it doesn't have to be the subject of the source, but the source must provide some in-depth coverage of the subject, not just the cultural item. So, for example, if e.g. Polygon writes about the Mandalorian and goes off on a long tangent about the history of bone broth, that seems like at least a gray area worth considering.
  2. Regarding fair game for a popular culture section - It would be worth framing this as a minimum requirement rather than what absolutely determines inclusion. This might be assumed, but given the nature of "in popular culture debates" it may be worth articulating. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

     Rhododendrites, good ideas! I think I can craft some wording for point 2 (after ...fair game for a popular culture section add (this is not the only factor for inclusion, merely the minimum; other relevant policies apply)., but am a little more at a loss for point 1. Do you have a suggested wording? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm frankly appalled that a long time experienced editor like Rhododendrites and even an admin like CaptainEek who are both very well respected members of the community are still attempting to apply notability guidelines to article content even after it has been pointed out this is against the guidelines. I did notice the masterful tactic to go around it by saying the intention was to frame it as something "similar to the way we talk about notability". I have a suggested wording. You could call it note-ability. That way you're technically not violating any notability guidelines while you apply something "similar" to them. Yeah, sounds good to me. I just might be good enough to get into the master tactic club one day... Huggums537 (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Guidance can change. No rule is written in stone on Wikipedia. Also, I argue that this is not an actual notability requirement. Notability requires that at least three sources exist for an article to exist. This is only requiring one source (like basically every other peice of content), it's just that that source needs to be related to the subject. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  CaptainEek, sure guidance can change, but it hasn't. Not yet. So, why do we even have it if nobody is going to bother following it? Also, I argue that if your proposal is in a situation where you find the need to argue your point in a debate about whether it is violating the guidelines or not, then that makes the proposal questionable. Lastly, my final suggestion for wording is not-ability, like a hyphenation of not notability. Lol. Oh my gosh! I crack myself up sometimes! Huggums537 (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  What better time to change it then now? Sungodtemple (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Notability requires that at least three sources exist, @CaptainEek? I've always heard that it was at least two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Huggums537: Rhododendrites ... attempting to apply notability guidelines to article content. No, saying that we could explain X in a manner similar to how we explain something Y doesn't mean X=Y. If we wanted to write a new policy about something and wanted to convey "it's not explicitly against the rules but it's usually a bad idea" I might say we should explain it like we explain COI. That doesn't mean we should apply the COI policy to whatever the new policy is. But ultimately, yes, using the word "notability" in Eek's original proposal is a mistake. That word is loaded, leads to confusion, and leads to lots of unnecessary subthreads over the use of that term. This isn't actually about notability it's about inclusion criteria for a particular kind of material. Some people throw the word "notability" around about this stuff, some people say "noteworthy"... whatever word people are using, we can tell from the context that we aren't talking about WP:N because that's not about content, and we're talking about content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites puts it better than I do: I did not intend this to be a notability requirement, I was simply at a loss for better words. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, as I just explained to your our colleague, if you find yourself in a situation where you feel the need to defend the proposal about it violating guidelines or not with a bunch of technical jargon or other debate only proves the proposal is questionable. Huggums537 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  ... Eek shouldn't have said "notability". Nobody's trying to apply the criteria for an article on Wikipedia to whether we include a cultural reference. If you think the proposal is bad or would prefer to oppose until "notability" is nowhere to be seen, I completely get that, but can we move on from the semantic line of argumentation to what's actually being argued? I would add that if you find yourself in a situation where you feel the need to stand by an objection even after it's pointed out that nobody actually supports the thing you're objecting to, it may prove the objection is questionable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, you are right. Eek shouldn't have said "notability". Likewise, you shouldn't have said "similar to the way we talk about notability". I see a lot of "shouldn't haves" here. Also, I would add that if you find yourself in a situation where you feel the need to stand by an objection even after it's pointed out that nobody actually supports the thing you're objecting to, it may prove the objection is questionable. Or, it could just mean nobody knows me and everybody knows the nominator so the natural tendency is to support who you know and trust because they have proven themselves, and be watchful of the newcomer because you don't already trust them yet. Or, it could be that the nominator has been around way longer so they have way more followers. It could also be that newer editors who might feel the same way I do are simply not aware processes like this exist or they may not be skilled enough to participate. There could be any number of actually reasonable explanations for not having any support other than my objection being questionable. OTH, the only really reasonable explanation my colleagues would be having to try to prove that this proposal is not violating any guidelines is because it is questionable to begin with. Now, as much as I would love to argue the finer points of what's actually being argued, I think you made all of your points clear. I also think my "semantic line of argumentation" is pretty clear as well, and it sounds like you don't wanna hear any more "semantics", and I sure as heck don't wanna hear no more technical or policy jargon, so I guess that's a wrap. Huggums537 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Rhododendrites, I guess I just could not resist to argue the finer points with you. This isn't actually about notability it's about inclusion criteria for a particular kind of material. Well, inclusion criteria is just different words for notability. Almost everything we have about inclusion, or inclusion criteria links right back directly to notability. See: WP:Inclusion, WP:Inclusion (essay), and the most damning of all, WP:Inclusion criteria which is just a redirect to WP:N. Huggums537 (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I am also against any proposal to apply a rule to any one subtopic that I would not find reasonable to apply across all other subtopics. The reason for this being that it opens the door for more and more subtopics to be restricted to the rule until some idiot thinks it is a good idea for all of them. Huggums537 (talk) 20:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Watch out for the slippery slope! Sungodtemple (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, please do. Watch your step. Be careful. Take care. Don't take any wooden nickels either. Also, please note the above referenced article acknowledges the slippery slope as a logical argument in critical thinking (as opposed to a fallacy). Huggums537 (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose on the common sense ground that if something is noteworthy but not independently notable, imposing such a requirement will merely force editors to put it in other parts of the article rather than in a "popular culture" section. BD2412 T 20:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support: Basically WP:TRIVIA except it applies to sentences instead of sections. And some sections are just one sentence. Sungodtemple (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• I support the intent of this proposal, but do worry about the potential confusion over notability, whether intended or not. I've developed the proposal a little, as noted in the section below, and suggest tightening up the existing concept of 'noteworthiness' instead. Comments would be very welcome there. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposal by MichaelMaggs

Our biggest practical problem is that we don't have a consolidated set of guidelines on cultural material that can be easily linked to. The rules are spread across various guideline pages, with the most important substantive rule actually being on an MOS page, where many editors will never find it. MOS:CULTURALREFS notes that the 2015 RfC was closed with "The consensus is very clear that a secondary source is required in almost all cases. A tertiary source is even better, if available. In the rare case that a primary source is judged to be sufficient, it should be properly cited. The source(s) cited should not only establish the verifiability of the pop culture reference, but also its significance."

This is a proposal to bring the rules together into a single new guideline. It's based on CaptainEek's proposal and editor feedback, but with a few modifications. Specifically I've added more explanatory material, have made use of the existing concept of noteworthiness rather than inventing a new meaning for notability, and have based it on what the secondary source establishes not what it 'focuses on'. I doubt in practice that this would represent a radical change, but it should make it easier for editors to curate Cultural reference sections and to explain to new editors how they work.

Noteworthiness of cultural references

Some articles include a section devoted to the subject's cultural significance, often called "In popular culture", "In the media", "Cultural references" or the like. Especially where they are presented as lists, such sections can if not effectively curated degenerate into mere collections of trivial or otherwise non-encylopedic references. This guideline applies to all Cultural reference sections, regardless of the specific title used.

As explained at WP:NNC, the general notability guidelines define how notable a subject has to be before it can have its own Wikipedia article. Those guidelines do not, in themselves, apply directly to article content, which means mean that (with the exception of certain lists that explicitly restrict inclusion to notable entries) an individual item of content such as a cultural reference is not normally required to demonstrate standalone notability. However, the fact that a reference may be verifiable does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion (WP:VNOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE). For example, evidence that the article's subject verifiably appears in a particular cultural context such as an episode of a TV series is not in itself enough.

As with all content, a cultural reference must be sufficiently noteworthy to be mentioned within the context of the article. 'Noteworthy' in this context means capable of being supported by at least one secondary source that establishes not only the verifiability of the cultural reference, but also its significance to a discussion of the article's subject. Note that this is a one-sided test: it is not enough for the article's subject to be of significance within the cultural context of the reference.

Example

An imaginary example may be useful. Assume that in a Cultural references section of the Bone broth article, an editor has added a reference to the fact that some soup of that type was drunk by Baby Yoda in an episode of The Mandalorian. Is that a noteworthy addition to the article? That will depend on the availability and content of the sources:

Unsourced, or supported solely by the primary source of the episode itself

• If challenged, no, since no secondary source has been supplied.

Sourced to a national newspaper article that discusses how important the broth-drinking incident was to the development of the overarching storyline of the entire Mandalorian TV series

• No, since the source does not establish the significance of the specific drinking episode to the article's general discussion of its subject, namely bone broth. No matter how prominent the incident may be within its own cultural context, it cannot be considered noteworthy unless it is significant within the context of the article's subject. In this example, the incident would best be added not to Bone broth but to The Mandalorian.

Sourced to a cookery book in which a recipe for bone broth mentions that Baby Yoda famously drank some

• Possibly yes, as this is a secondary source that establishes the significance of the incident within the context of a discussion of bone broth. Of course, editors may still hold the cultural reference to be insufficiently important even in that context, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but in principle the source should be usable.

The Manual of Style has further information on the preferred layout of cultural reference material: see MOS:CULTURALREFS

Feedback would be welcome. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs, I think this proposal has the heart in the right place, but I have some concerns. One can be easily fixed, but the other is so disturbing it might affect the whole proposal. First, I think this: Those guidelines do not, in themselves, apply directly to article content, which means that (with the exception of certain lists that explicitly restrict inclusion to notable entries) an individual item of content such as a cultural reference is not normally required to demonstrate standalone notability. needs to be changed to: Those guidelines mean that (with the exception of certain lists that explicitly restrict inclusion to notable entries) an individual item of content such as a cultural reference is not normally required to demonstrate standalone notability. because the previous sentence refers to both WP:NNC and WP:N, but the way it is currently written it's not crystal clear to the reader exactly what "apply" means or which one of these guidelines is being referenced when it says "those guidelines don't apply directly to article content". Better to just leave that part out if it's going to confuse things. Now for the doozy. I went through the MOS you linked to and found no references at all to "Noteworthy", and the only three references I found regarding notability were all three related to the main topic of a subject and had nothing to do with the treatment of the cultural references. Your proposal mentions "noteworthy" something like 4 times (not counting the subtitle). That alone makes this proposal even more problematic than the one Eek tried to come up with and I would promptly oppose it once voting started. I'm sure you are probably more than well aware of this by now, but I refer you to: WP:NOTEWORTHY because I think it is rather ironic that this is where that link leads to... Huggums537 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

On your first point, I've made the clarifying change you suggested. On the second, I'm sorry to hear that you intend to vote against this proposal as you have against CaptainEek's, but there's nothing remotely "disturbing" about it. As I mentioned, 'noteworthiness' is a concept already used in WP:NNC (or WP:NOTEWORTHY if you prefer) but it's currently undefined. I'm proposing that 'noteworthy' is clarified so that in the specific context of cultural references it is defined as "capable of being supported by at least one secondary source that establishes not only the verifiability of the cultural reference, but also its significance to a discussion of the article's subject", a slightly rephrased version of the 2015 RfC closure. MichaelMaggs (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs, thank you for making the suggested change. However, noteworthy can't be a concept being used in NNC because it isn't even defined just as you said. Also, the way it's being used there isn't so much a concept as it is an interchangeable term with "content coverage". You could remove the entire "noteworthy" parenthetical statement from that statement leaving you with: Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. or you could just as easily interchange it with: (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned within the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. and you would still be saying the same thing, but the significance of all this interchanging is that the guideline is clearly telling us that both "content coverage" and "noteworthy" are already governed by DUE and other policies. I've gone into some detail about how none of these proposals have much support in DUE. The only policies you have provided to support this proposal are WP:VNOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Both of these are great policies for removal of bad stuff, and even prevention, but we already do that anyway, and neither of those policies in any way support requiring significant coverage similar to notability for content, and we actually have guidelines against it. You would have to show me policy that supports such a proposal, especially in DUE since the guideline said DUE is the principal governor of noteworthy, but if you can find anything in WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:NPOV that supports regulating content in this manner, then I will accept that too. Huggums537 (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs, P.S. I got a little carried away with the whole "disturbing" thing. Pay no attention to my occasional melodrama... Huggums537 (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Huggums537, I'm really sorry. I've read every word of the many postings you've made in response to this and the above proposal but I'm truly unable to discern your underlying rationale. I think you are arguing that things can't be done because they aren't compatible with the wording of existing guidelines. But the whole point is to change and improve those guidelines. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs, ok so if I am understanding you correctly, what you are saying is that you do in fact see my argument about these proposals being against the guidelines, but your counter argument is that the whole point is to intentionally go against them in order effect a change in them for the purpose of improvement? To that I would say that if you intend to go against the current guidelines and/or effect any changes in them, then the discussion should be brought before an even larger community with proper discussion notices posted at both WP:N, the central discussion area of village pump, and anywhere else a controversial guideline change might be made known to the public... Huggums537 (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Huggums537, Oh dear, I fear you've expended a lot of time and effort arguing on the basis of a false premise. Of course the proposals aren't in line with existing guidelines. They suggest improvements and changes: that's the whole point. I thought that was quite clear, in that CaptainEek referred to the "substantive change that we could implement", and I explicitly suggested "a single new guideline". This is a preliminary discussion about possible changes, and everyone understands that any consensus to change a guideline that emerges here will naturally have to be presented to the wider community in a formal way before anything actually gets implemented. MichaelMaggs (talk)

MichaelMaggs, ok then. You might be right about argument over a false premise, but I feel my time has been well spent making some valid points. Huggums537 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that unless the intention is to modify or replace current existing guidelines, then "a single new guideline" that is along the same lines of the ones being proposed here would be in direct conflict with the currently existing guidelines. That is the whole basis of my underlying rationale. For example, if you made this "single new guideline", in order to make all guidelines compliant with the others, there would then also have to be discussion about removing all the instances in WP:N where it talks about how notability applies only to articles. (There are many.) Then, there would have to be talk about removing the whole section dedicated to the understanding that notability doesn't apply to content. All this in order for the new guideline to be compliant. If you are going to start talking about simply writing guidelines that conflict with each other and just letting it ride, then we might as well stop calling it guidelines and start calling it Wikipedia:Optional choice - Choose your own adventure! Huggums537 (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yet another proposal (sorry)

Based on the work above, but I feel a little clearer, and including the suggestions I listed above. If unhelpful, let me know, and I won't put up much of a fuss about collapsing it. :) It's much in line with the original proposal b CaptainEek above, so I also don't mind if we just swap it in up there (if participants feel like it's an improvement, of course). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Articles often include material about cultural references to the subject of the article. Sometimes this content is in its own section ("in popular culture" is the most common, but also "in the media", "cultural references", etc.), and sometimes it is included with other prose. When not effectively curated, such material can expand in ways not compatible with Wikipedia policies like what Wikipedia is not and neutral point of view.

Cultural references about a subject should not be included simply because they exist. Before including a reference in an article, that reference should be discussed in reliable secondary sources which specifically link the cultural item to the subject. These sources should cover the subject of the article in some depth, and not simply mention it in a source about the movie, song, television show, etc. which referenced it.

Take for example the subject of bone broth. You may wish to include mention of how Baby Yoda in The Mandalorian drank bone broth. An appropriate source might be Bon Appetit magazine, which is a reliable source for articles about soup. If Bon Appetit mentions how Baby Yoda drank bone broth, it may be suitable for inclusion in the bone broth article. By contrast, an article in Polygon reviewing the latest episode of The Mandalorian which does not go into any detail about bone broth but simply mentions that Baby Yoda drank some in that episode is not sufficient to include in the article because it does not provide any significant coverage of the subject of the article.

Note that this sourcing requirement is a minimum threshold for inclusion of cultural references. Consensus at the article level can determine whether particular references which meet this criteria should be included.

• I support this version, as it accomplishes what I intended, as well as dealing with some matters I hadn't considered. More than happy to have this be swapped in for my version. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Rhododendrites, this seems more reasonable. Where would you intend to implement said proposal? I meant to ask this of CaptainEek on the original proposal, but forgot. This seems like important information to me, but nobody else seems to be worried that much about it... Huggums537 (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  Good question. I wasn't sure, either, and don't have a strong opinion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, now that I'm looking at it, this just seems like the same proposal rewritten. There is nothing whatsoever in WP:DUE that supports the idea of making it a content requirement that you must have a secondary source, and the only policy or guideline that supports the idea that a reliable secondary source must have more than a mere mention of the subject, or that secondary sources must cover the subject in depth, or have "significant coverage" is WP:N (which does not apply to content WP:NNC), and all these WP:Inclusion criteria, are supposed to apply only to articles, not content. Huggums537 (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  Words have meaning outside of what someone chose to assign as a redirect target. We make decisions about what to include or not include within articles all the time; we also regularly codify these sorts of decisions in our policies and guidelines (some quick examples: WP:LPNAME, WP:GAMECRUFT). "Inclusion" as a concept is not tied solely to notability. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, Words might have meanings outside of redirect targets, and policies or guidelines, but that would indicate those meanings only exist in the minds of the Wikipedified. You may very well have been making decisions about what to include or what not to include within articles for a very long time. but you have been doing so against current policy and guideline. WP:LPNAME is more about privacy issues than it is about "inclusion", therefore a poor example, and I actually do see a clear violation there in the last sentence, but just because WP:Other stuff exists doesn't mean it should be repeated. WP:GAMECRUFT is a MOS, not a policy or guideline. Nevertheless, I think you should read it again since everything there actually is tied to very well to notability in that the directive applies to the notability of gaming articles not content just as it should when it comes to notability and all the "inclusion criteria" is focused on the noted exception; lists. Although, I do see a violation of the notability guideline with #13 and #15, but again, just because violations exist don't mean we should repeat them, we should fix them. Huggums537 (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  MOS is a guideline, and much of the material in that guideline (aside from #1 and #2) has nothing to do with notability and everything to do with what to include within gaming articles. What specific policy or guideline do you think is being "violated" in making decisions about content within articles, when you have argued repeatedly WP:N does not apply to content? What "clear violation" do you feel exists in the WP:BLP policy, and why would you believe N would take precedence over other policies? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria, WP:NOT also has plenty about what not to include in articles as well. You could just link to that too, but everything there will offer just as little support for this proposal as what you have linked to. The only guideline that offers the most support for this proposal also just happens to be the same one that says it isn't supposed to apply to something like this. The problem you have identified with what you linked to is that policies, guidelines, and editors are conflicting with each other in the first place. So, I think identifying this conflict is the first step in solving the problem. Therefore, your question about what violation I think exists is a valid one. The conflict (i.e. "violation") arises when we have a policy : However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced. and it is worded so ambiguously that it could mean several things, including one interpretation which is against our guidelines about applying notability to content. So, the problem isn't about "precedence", it's about "conflict", and why we have clear directives telling us that notability is not supposed to apply to article content, but yet you just gave us examples of where people have introduced this so called "concept" into the MOS at WP:GAMECRUFT #13, #15 and I see #8 also now. Huggums537 (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

  We've gotten well off the track of what the actual proposal is now, so I'll suggest you take any perceived conflicts between our policies and guidelines to a different venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Notice - this discussion has slowed down considerably. Considering there seems to be broad agreement about the basic principles, I've boldly updated MOS:POPCULT. I only see a couple people dissenting throughout these threads (not counting the original thread about the term "popular culture," but also including past discussions about sourcing/inclusion/what's usually preferable). So let's see if we can shift the conversation to discussion over specific wording at that talk page rather than here? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for your efforts here. Regarding, "Rather, all such references should be discussed in at least one reliable secondary source..."...I wonder whether this language should be strengthened, perhaps in accordance with the RfC referenced at WP:IPCV, which uses the language, "a secondary source is required in almost all cases." To me, that's a bit stronger than "should". DonIago (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Doniago, do you want a "true" secondary source, or just not a PLOT-level self-source? Imagine that the content in question is whether to mention the film Mr. Holland's Opus in the articles about Minuets in G major and G minor and A Lover's Concerto. Is it:

  • enough to source this claim to the film itself? (primary, non-independent)
  • enough to source it to an interview with the film's director that mentions the names? (primary, non-independent)
  • enough to source it to a magazine article that mentions the names? (primary, independent)

  Or do you need a "true" secondary source, which is one explains why these particular songs were chosen and what effect was produced as a result? (If that true secondary is by the film's makers, it's a non-independent secondary source; if it's by someone unconnected, it's an independent secondary source.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  I think it depends on the claim. If it's "the music is played in the film" (say, as part of a short list), then the film's credits may be sufficient. If information about the music being played in the film is being added to an IPC section though, essentially claiming that the occurrence of the music in the film has some level of significance, then it should be a source that gives some context to the use of the music within the film beyond the mere fact of it. If it's an interview with the film's director that mentions why the music was chosen, for instance, that could work. In my experience 75% of IPC items are problematic because no source is provided, with an additional 15% being problematic because the source doesn't discuss the item in any significant detail. Is this helpful? DonIago (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Super helpful. Also, I tend to agree with you. ;-)

  I think it might be helpful to say that there needs to be "a source that gives some context or explains why it is significant, beyond the mere fact of it". That would prevent editors from incorrecting each other about whether the cited source is "really" a secondary one. It would presumably include a wide range of sources, but all of the usable sources would be able to support a sentence longer and more significant than "This music was in this film" (or "This disease was mentioned in one of the 17 years that Grey's Anatomy was on television"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  The analogy I like to use is that the source should establish not just that the tree fell in the woods, but that it made a sound when it fell. :p But yes, since we're talking specifically about IPC sections, I agree with everything you just said. The language at WP:IPCV may be useful in terms of formulating the specific verbiage. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Doniago, and @WhatamIdoing, could either of you explain to me how this little mini-discussion you just had about requiring "significant coverage" in sources "beyond the mere fact of it" for simply adding minor content to any article or section isn't just this notability guideline being applied to content instead of being applied to the creation of articles as the notability guideline was intended? Is the guideline not clear that notability was not intended for content, but for the creation of articles? 05:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Huggums537 (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  As I mentioned in my first comment in this thread, there was an RfC that established that when adding IPC content secondary sources are required "in almost all cases". I don't believe anyone involved in that RfC raised the question that you're raising now. If that consensus bothers you, the RfC was long enough ago that you're welcome to raise the question again. Otherwise, you seem to have an objection here, and I'm not sure what it is. DonIago (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  My objection is to the onslaught of various proposals about some "mysterious concept of basic principals" that is supposed to solve article content issues by requiring things such as "significant coverage", and "more than existence in sources" from a community who is seemingly oblivious to the fact that this concept already has a name entitled "notability". Except, our existing guidance tells us this concept is strictly for the creation of articles, not parsing out article content. If it isn't obvious to you by now that my objection is with the direct conflict to the existing guidance, then I'm not sure it really matters what my objection is. Huggums537 (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Huggums537, it's not about the notability guidelines. It's about WP:PSTS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". In this case, we're talking about what it would mean for this specific section's contents to be Wikipedia:Based upon secondary sources.

  All articles should be primarily citing secondary sources. Why not this section, too? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  it's not about the notability guidelines. So, that's what they keep telling me, except we haven't just simply been talking about making sure content has reliable sources that are secondary. We have been making additional inclusion criteria not covered in the slightest little bit by WP:PSTS which includes "significant coverage" among other things that have way more to do with WP:NRV than any other policy or guideline you could possibly link to. You can easily see that it only stands to reason if this were simply about adding sources as you claim, then the existing guidance that you have linked to would be sufficient when combined with other policies we have about verifiability and there would be no need for any of these abusive and WP:Creepy proposals. So, why not this section too? Because content within articles (including sections) aren't supposed to be having that much to do with WP:NRV or any part of WP:N according to the existing guidance at WP:NNC. Huggums537 (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Huggums537, you are the only person to use the words "significant coverage" in this mini-discussion. Naturally, nobody can tell you why you think they were using words that they didn't use.

  I wonder, though, whether the answer to your real question is in Wikipedia:Balancing aspects. A mere passing mention in a source suggests that we are talking about "minor aspects of its subject", whereas "a source that gives some context or explains why it is significant, beyond the mere fact of it" suggests that the detail is not merely a minor aspect, and that it should be included in the article "with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  It seems we are just mincing words here. Sure, I've been the only one to use the exact phrase, "significant coverage", but that is only because using that terminology was easier than repeating how others in the "mini-discussion" have talked about 1) levels of significance in relation to claims made in IPC sections, 2) levels of significance in relation to the details of sources, and 3) the significance of content beyond the mere fact of it. All of which are notability concepts that could be summed up as "significant coverage". I think anyone, including myself, would agree with you that, "a source that gives some context or explains why it is significant, beyond the mere fact of it" suggests that the detail is not merely a minor aspect, and that it should be included in the article "with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". However, this statement also implicitly suggests that material should not be included at all (different from being included proportionally and also an WP:Inclusion criteria) if the source isn't giving "significance". Again, making it go back to a point about notability above and beyond simply being about sourcing or proportion. What I hear the bulk of the community saying is that we have a problem with trivia laden IPC sections that are usually poorly/unsourced, and even though we have sourcing policies already in place to remedy this, we propose some new instruction creep that will conflict with existing guidance, which will by extension, conflict among editors as well. Problem solved. Huggums537 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  • SIGCOV is a piece of jargon whose meaning has almost nothing to do with the plain English terms. We can talk about a source giving significant attention to a fact without caring about SIGCOV.
  • If no source (including sources other than the one I'm looking at) suggests that a given piece of information has any significance/importance/salience to the article's subject, then why would you want to include that piece of information in that article? I mean, it might be both true and verifiable that Joe Film ate an apple on the morning of his wedding, but why would editors include that fact in the Wikipedia article about Apples, if there are no reliable sources that indicate his wedding breakfast menu is a relatively important thing for people to know about apples?

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  We can talk about a source giving significant attention to a fact without caring about SIGCOV. Except, these proposals are talking about doing way more than just that. Once you start talking about the other added requirements mentioned in these proposals, there is no more avoiding WP:NRV or SIGCOV.

  Also, I agree with you on your second point again. We wouldn't want that kind of unrelated information in articles even if it is verifiable. However, we already have lots of policies and guidance to deal with that. These proposals add needless "guidance cruft" and cause conflict. Huggums537 (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  (1) I am not responsible for what other people are (or aren't) talking about.

  (2) Nothing I was talking about undermines NRV or SIGCOV. Nothing I was talking about is related to NRV or SIGCOV.

  (3) The word significant is used in the very first sentence of the NPOV policy, and several times throughout that policy. The use of the word significant in other pages is not related to NRV or notability.

  (4) If "talking about the other added requirements" always means that "there is no more avoiding WP:NRV or SIGCOV", then I invite you to contemplate this sentence: "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." That's part of NPOV. IMO it does not related to NRV or SIGCOV. This suggests to me that you jumped to the wrong conclusion when you wrote that the existence of other requirements impinges upon NRV and SIGCOV.

  (5) The modern version of NRV was created in 2009. It did not contain the word significant until the following year. NRV is not dependent upon that word, and it does not have an exclusive right to it. Not everything about significance is about NRV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  I am not responsible for what other people are (or aren't) talking about. True, but you are still part of a larger discussion that you must acknowledge, and more attempts to avoid the facts by saying that will only make your arguments appear weaker.

  Nothing I was talking about is related to NRV or SIGCOV. Again, I was referencing the main topic (the proposals). This discussion is bigger than just you and I.

  The use of the word significant in other pages is not related to NRV or notability. I love how you keep saying a bunch of true things that have nothing to do with the proposals. The way the word is being used in the proposals does have something to do with notability.

  If "talking about the other added requirements" always means that "there is no more avoiding WP:NRV or SIGCOV"... I never said it "always means". Please don't break up my quotes and add your own words in the middle. Only people who want to put ricin in my sweet tea do that sort of thing. Thanks.

  Not everything about significance is about NRV But, everything in these proposals is about NRV. Nobody cares if everything else isn't. These talks are not about everything else... Huggums537 (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Nothing in the particular proposal that *I* was talking about is about notability. Maybe you should be talking to those other editors about their proposals that allegedly involve notability, instead of talking to me, since I definitely wasn't talking about notability? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  I want to add that you, Nikkimaria, and others who keep trying to prove how these proposals are backed up by all these policies and guidelines other than WP:N will never be able to escape the fact that whatever any one of these proposals might claim to be based upon, they will all still contain those parts which makes them based on notability as well. I think a good analogy would be to think of the proposals as a mixture of sweet tea. The community is saying, "we have brewed some really good sweet tea here that is based on 99% pure organic cane sugar!", and I'm over here pleading, "yeah, but that sugar has got 1% Ricin above and beyond the 99%. I'd really think twice about having any of that if I were you." Huggums537 (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think so. Once we've decided that an article about Apples should exist, then we're finished with our advice pages on how to decide whether the article should exist, and we move on to the core content policies.

  It's true that our advice on whether the article should exist coordinates with the core content policies. That is intentional, and I suspect that you would think us all rather stupid if we wrote the notability rules to include subjects that can't be verified. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  This is essentially a claim that we're finished with notability guidance ("advice pages") after article creation, but if this were true, then WP:NNC would not exist to tell us what not to do within articles after creation. The fact it does exist is proof we are not finished with the notability guidance after the article is created. So, even 1% of the notability guidance in the mix might not sound like that much of a big deal, but it's just enough of the wrong stuff to contaminate the whole sweet tea brew.

  Also, if you are suggesting we need these proposals to prevent people from thinking the notability rules were written to include unverified subjects, then maybe it isn't me who thinks anyone is rather stupid... Huggums537 (talk) 11:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  The primarily purpose of NNC is to tell you that once the article has been created, you are done with the notability guidelines. We could have written "Note: If another editor insists that this guideline, whose sole and exclusive purpose is determining whether a subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article, is also the guideline for determining what to write about that subject, then this guideline authorizes you to trout the idiot", but editors probably would have complained about our uncollegial WP:TONE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  More or less agree with this. Huggums537 (talk) 02:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Put another way: "Go away! You are looking at the wrong page!" does not mean "This guideline controls 1% of the other subject". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  I emphatically disagree that WP:NNC translates to: "Go away! You are looking at the wrong page!". So, I think your assessment about the meaning, and your conclusion about what "This guideline controls 1% of the other subject" does not mean are based upon a false premise. I also think we asking the wrong questions. For example, you posed the question earlier that Joe Film ate an apple on his wedding, and why would we want that in our article about apples? The prevailing question among the community seems to be, "why do we want this stuff?". However, I think the more relevant, and more important question is how do our policies and guidelines relate to this, but the dominating force of the community appears to be about what we want. This is of great concern to me because they seem to be willing to overlook the guidelines and do whatever mental gymnastics it takes to get what we want. This is at the cost of editor conflict later down the road that leads to blocks, retirement, and a host of other problems. There has to be a better way... Huggums537 (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  What specific policy or guideline says we should or should not include "Joe Film ate an apple on the morning of his wedding" in our Apple article? And if you are the only one saying the sweet tea contains ricin, have you considered that it doesn't? I agree with WAID's interpretation of NNC. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  What specific policy or guideline says we should or should not include "Joe Film ate an apple on the morning of his wedding" in our Apple article?. There is no "specific" one. We have many policies and guidelines that govern this, which is what makes the already implemented proposal needless and creepy instruction cruft. And if you are the only one saying the sweet tea contains ricin, have you considered that it doesn't? Nope. Never considered it. Just because you are the lone minority doesn't make it a proven fact you are wrong. Also, of course you would agree with WAID's interpretation since both of you have been using the same kind of logic that says, "words sometimes have multiple meanings, therefore the meaning Huggums has derived from, or ascribed to these proposals could not possibly be the correct one since too many other meanings exist for Huggums to have narrowed it down to this one". In other words, you've essentially boldly asserted that there is no possible way for me to have come up with my conclusions with any certainty, and even if there was a way to do it, then I'm certainly not the one who has come to the correct conclusions about it. My only response to this is that I must concede that I can't argue with logic like that. Huggums537 (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  Also, another reason I haven't made any considerations about me "being the only one" is because I think it very much depends which side of the fence you are on as to why that even matters. For example, if everyone in my class is doing drugs, but I'm "the only one" who decides not to, then from my side of the fence I think I've made a rather smart decision compared to all my other classmates, but from their side of the fence I could imagine they would think I'm foolish and stupid for not joining in the fun with everyone else. We could argue about which side of the fence is right or wrong, and which is smarter or more stupid, but the law would still say drugs are illegal at the end of our debate...Huggums537 (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Worthy?

Just an aside and probably out of sequence, but we need to tread carefully around the word noteworthy. In general, notability talks about a subject having been noted rather than a subject somehow being worthy. (Just wander through the archives of Wikipedia talk:Notability to see plenty of previous discussions.) So, inclusion in WP is about a subject already having been included in other sources, not whether we have a view about how worthy a subject might be for inclusion. The distinction is probably core to much of the IPC discussion – we should not add items to IPC just because we think they should be there (however interesting or entertaining they can be), but because other sources have already noted the connection. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

GhostInTheMachine, if you were wandering through talk pages on the WP:N pages, then these distinctions that you have been explaining to us between "noted" or "worthy" is how inclusion applies to articles, not the content within them. To say it a better way, we would rephrase your own statement to say: So, inclusion in WP is about a [subject's article] already having been included in other sources, not whether we have a view about how worthy a subject might be for [article] inclusion. That means everything you just explained about these distinctions is not core to the IPC discussion, it is in fact irrelevant to it. That is what the bulk of the community is failing to grasp. They are confusing main topics (articles) with subtopics (sections) and subjects (which could refer to content or an article title) so it's very easy to see how everyone gets confused so easily. Wikipedia needs to come up with less confusing naming conventions or editors just need to get better at deciphering the madness... Huggums537 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

The reason I keep driving these point home is because people seem to be blissfully unaware that they are wanting the notability policy to support their very well intentioned notions that they should be able to make inclusion requirements for content that talks about such things as distinctions between "noted" and "worthy", or "significant coverage in secondary sources", and "inclusion criteria". However, when it is pointed out to them that the notability policy actually does not support this well intentioned notion, but clearly says it is intended to be used for articles, not content, and even has a section specifically dedicated to talking about how it doesn't apply to content, they start to seek support for it elsewhere, such as DUE, but eventually they will find that support for it only exists in the mind of the Wikipedified... Huggums537 (talk) 15:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Section break for new comments to support/oppose

• totally oppose. The phrase "popular culture" emerged organically based upon common popular <ahem> usage. on that basis, it should be retained. I see no basis for discarding or proscribing it in any way. and by the way, there is a clear and highly significant distinction between forms of popular culture such as comic books and rock music, and the more classic, long-standing, and higher elements of our culture, such as classic literature, music and art from past centuries. that is the whole point of this phrase. ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 14:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Putting this at the bottom may be confusing, as only the top part of this thread is about the phrase itself. The rest of this discussion is about the content that goes in such sections (under any name). Perhaps it makes sense for us to start a new section at the bottom of this page for the content-focused (rather than terminology-focused) proposal(s), so as to avoid confusion. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Rhododendrites:, those are excellent points and suggestions. whatever method you think best is totally fine and acceptable to me. thanks for providng your valuable input and corrections. ---Sm8900 (talk) 🌍 16:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree, unsure what exactly this section is voting on. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Me three. I thought maybe this was a response to the OP way up top, but wasn't sure... Huggums537 (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
• There are two things that Wikipedia has from the beginning done notably well: Computer technology, and popular culture. Back in 2001, thee weevery few geneally accessible sources reliable forthe sort of computer articles, especially on open software, anywhere near as comprehnsive or good as WP. In 2001 there were very few serious academic sources or reliable non0fan sources of any kind, bout many aspcts of popular culture. Most of the many journals now in existnece weren't yet started; the major humanities journals and indexes ignored it. Again, things are better now, but I think most people in the world think its the one best source for this domain, a domain which is appaently he major concern of hundreds of millions of people. How else would people like me even know about this part of the world? These sections, even when they are inherently trivial, are often interesting--who among us here really always skips over for them? DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pop culture is extremely turbulent, normal culture lasts. In order to show what span something has been culturally significant for, seeing what timespan it has been used in popular culture makes sense. We can see that Picasso was culturally relevant longer than OJ Simpson because one is featured in works for a longer time and the other isn't. It also doesn't make sense to just rename it to to "Culture" because the fluid changes in pop culture clash with the lasting traditions of normal culture and it's important to keep them distinct. Plutonical (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

My proposal

I actually worked on banging together some guidelines for this a while back.

1. if a section is "X in popular culture", X should be a proper noun, otherwise it doesn't really have a unique identity to be displayed in popular culture. "Clothes in popular culture: characters on Star Trek wear clothes."
2. if X has appeared in Y, but Y is not itself the topic of a Wikipedia article, it doesn't get mentioned.
3. if X appears in Y, but is not both indispensable and central to Y, then it doesn't get mentioned. DS (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

   DragonflySixtyseven, this reverts directly back to my same old arguments of all the previous proposals, in that these very outdated and "Wikipedified" ideas about what the guidelines should be (2009) are in direct conflict with the directives of the current notability guideline which clearly says in the nutshell; The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article. and in the lead; These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list... plus a whole section of the notability guideline dedicated to the very subject: WP:NNC. So, to say that a topic "must have a Wikipedia article" {i.e. must be notable) just to be included as some minor content within an article is a clear violation of, and direct conflict with the current guideline.

   Besides, the proposal makes littles sense anyway.

   First, it is essentially saying that only articles with titles that are proper nouns may have "IPC" sections because articles with other kinds of titles somehow don't have a "unique identity" (whatever that's supposed to mean). Then, confuses things much further by saying only articles with proper noun titles have IPC sections that must contain topics that have Wikipedia articles, and only these proper noun articles must have IPC topics that somehow connect back to the original proper noun article. There are so many logical content restriction flaws in it, that it makes me grateful the current guidance advises against applying notability to content. Huggums537 (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Enable Article / Talk tab bar for mobile anon users

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus that the proposal to enable the article/talk tab bar for mobile anonymous users should be implemented. (non-admin closure) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Note:phab:T293946 has been opened for this. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

---

If you visit https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mona_Lisa while logged in, you'll see the "Article Talk" tab bar. ("minerva__tab-container" element) But if you're logged out, this tab bar goes missing and there's no way to access the talk page unless you manually alter the URL. This turns out to be by design and now consensus is required for a configuration change to ensure that anyone who can edit can also reach talk pages. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, Obviously. Sometimes I really do question if the WMF understands the site that they run, this is supposed to be a collaborative encyclopaedia building site - how on earth is collaboration supposed to occur when you hide the main methods of communicating from the vast majority of users? The requirement for consensus seems to be backward here - removing the ability for anonns to communicate on mobile should have required community engagement, restoring longstanding functionality should be the default. The rationale for removing talk page access for all mobile annons seems to be a combination of "mobile IP users are obviously too stupid to understand the concept of a talk page and would just fill them up with nonsense and spam" (I'd like to see the data that supports this, according to the phabricator task this is based on them putting a talk page link in a rarely visited settings page and being surprised that people didn't understand what it did???) and that the mobile talk pages are too buggy to be publicly available (In which case they need fixing, not hiding.). I just can't see the sense in having a huge body of users who are allowed to edit the site but are barred from discussing their editing - it just seems dumb. 192.76.8.74 (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  For background, talk pages were never removed, rather they were added. The mobile site was built from the ground up. In fact, we didn't have editing for a long time as it was communicated to WMF by editors that notifications were mandatory before we could do that. We added notifications, then editing. Talk page access was only added in current form circa 2019 because communities spoke up and helped drive that priority.

  Building the mobile site has always been based on priorities, so nobody in WMF has ever removed this functionality as you are alleging here. Please assume good faith. Our software is extremely complex with very few maintainers. Jdlrobson (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• ? @Jdlrobson: - any reason someone is going to try to block setting $wgMinervaTalkAtTop = [ "base" => true ]; if the enwiki community asks for it? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  Replied with suggestions: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T54165#7301936 Jdlrobson (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a bit torn here, in that I only partially agree that this is supposed to be a collaborative encyclopaedia building site. The primary purpose of this site is to be an encyclopedia serving our readers. Obviously, to have an encyclopedia, you need to write an encyclopedia, but the writing is not the primary purpose. It's just a means to the end. Screen real estate on a mobile device is precious, and wasting pixels on a feature that's mainly of benefit to writers degrades the experience of our readers. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  RoySmith, that's a valid argument, but you can't have it both ways. Either mobile anon users can edit (which they currently can) and they need to be able to reach talk pages. Or you remove their edit button (that saves even more pixels) so they won't have a pressing need for talk pages anymore, but that's a difficult topic. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'd be happy to see all anonymous editing go away. Want to edit? Make an account and the editing buttons and links become visible. IMHO, the amount of effort we put into making anonymous editing work isn't justified by the value it adds. For example, the whole "IP Masking" effort that's currently underway. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  RoySmith, I don't oppose, but unless/until we manage to establish a consensus to end IP-editing (this recent effort went nowhere) we have to deal with it. So that's what I'm trying to do. As long as they have an edit button, they should have a talk page link. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  @RoySmith and Alexis Jazz: I don't think we should make the fork for showing editing features logged in vs. not. We want users to log in even if they never plan to edit so that if they do decide later on to fix a typo it'll be a smoother journey from there down the editing rabbit hole. But if their first reaction when they create an account is "ack, this just introduced all these ugly buttons I don't want", they'll never stay logged in. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• We should block all edits from all platforms that do not have full access. —Kusma (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom with my thanks for stewarding this issue. Not giving mobile IP editors access to talk pages is just stupid, I have no other words for it. WP:Communication is required. Levivich 06:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support Paid employees have missed the boat here. An IP user edits, is constantly reverted, but doesn't see explanations on their talk page. Effectively a campaign to frustrate and drive away IP editors, while further stigmatizing IP users to the community.—Bagumba (talk) 11:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• This is now a forked discussion, can I suggest redirecting this back to the WP:VPP section, as that is also diverging into something separate from what the section author originally wrote. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  This is a specific request for the mobile platform software, the other is a high-level policy proposal.—Bagumba (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with Bagumba: this is a specific proposal for a skin and should be allowed to reach its own conclusion. The other discussion is a broader one covering all clients. Regardless of its outcome, the skin can be changed as per community consensus. isaacl (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  @RoySmith: oppose early closure. This is a specific proposal to do a specific actionable thing. The thing is boolean as well so it is very easy to determine the result. That VPP discussion is extremely broad and vague. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  No problem, I've backed out my close. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support If a given setup supports editing, it should support talk pages. WP:ENGAGE. MarioGom (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• 
  Question I agree that giving everyone (including logged-out folks) access to the talk page is a good idea. However screen space is indeed limited on mobile, as RoySmith mentioned, and we know from our data that most logged-out people are not visiting Wikipedia with the intention of editing. They want to read articles, and the Article Talk tabs push the article down the page a bit, so does that design align with what they want? Additionally I wonder if the "Talk" tab, as it is currently presented to logged-in folks, might be confusing logged-out folks and newcomers in general (i.e. what does "Talk" mean? what will happen if I tap on it?)? Which brings me to these mockups made a few years ago by User:Npangarkar_(WMF), of an expanded article footer that has additional tools and information (including a link to the talk page). I feel like the inclusion of an icon, and the more descriptive title ("Discuss" vs. "Talk") make it easier for newcomers to understand what they might find if they tap on it. It could be even more helpful if the button/link included the number of discussions (something like "2 active discussions"), which was an idea explored in Winter. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  @AHollender (WMF): The note about screen real estate makes sense, but nobody really scrolls to the bottom either. There is a pencil icon on each section to edit it. Editing and discussion workflows should ideally go hand in hand, so if it's prominent and easy to edit there needs to be a complimentary method of discussion. Perhaps a button on the warning message that shows up when you click "Edit" is one way forward. For logged in users, the 'advanced mobile' mode (which shows the talk button) should perhaps be default, since most logged-in people do probably edit (?) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  That's a good point about wanting the workflows to go hand in hand, ProcReader. Maybe we want some more mockups of what that could look like.

  AHollender, regarding "discuss" vs. "talk", I believe the desktop tab used to say "discuss" instead. I'm not sure why it was changed, but that's probably a discussion to seek out. The biggest issue I tend to see is WP:NOTFORUM—it's not always intuitive that the discussion page is for discussing improvements to the article, not a general comment thread for discussion about the topic. We designed {{Talk header}} to help explain this, but the mobile developers got fed up with the banner bloat on talk pages and just shoved them into an "about this page" submenu no newcomer will ever click on, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  A common trap is for people to do mobile mockups in English, then be surprised when the German version is a mess because "Diskussion", "Quelltext bearbeiten" and "Versionsgeschichte" don't fit into the space allotted for "Talk", Edit", and "History". -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  It traditionally was Talk, then globally it was changed to "discussion" and then en.wp freaked out because "discussion" was too long (taking up more space in their monobook skin) and different from "talk" and they feared that "discussion" would invite discussions on the topic instead of the article, so en.wp changed it back to talk. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  People still use Monobook? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  Back then definitely. And the bar is all filled up with additional portlet actions for administrative actions as well, because dropdown menus are BAD :D —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  I do. I try Vector once per year, but never enjoy it. Too much whitespace and all my buttons are hidden somewhere. —Kusma (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  I absolutely do. Tried Vector for a while, but never could get used to it. Too much clutter. Monobook is clean and simple, and that's exactly what I want in an interface. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Qualified support. This is a classic example of systemic bias toward editor desires over WP:READER desires. I agree with everyone that it's essential to have some way to access talk pages from every editable page, but I agree with RoySmith and AHollender (WMF) that we don't want to give it inappropriate emphasis. The mockup of what it could look like from the bottom of the page looks quite nice, although I'd want to see some more discussion around what we'd want to go in the edit overview section or whether we should just keep the current "last edited by JimboWales" bar. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Readers also use the talk page. An IP's angry post at Talk:F-777 prompted me to fix a redirect we didn't know was broken. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support, and (probably deserves its own section) switch from text labels on tabs, to icons with tooltips (ha-ha, the mobile folks won't see the tips). RoySmith's comment about the length of terms like Quelltext bearbeiten raises a good point, but the solution is to follow the example of European road signs and come up with good icons for 'Read', 'Edit', 'History', and so on, and relegate text equivalents to second place. I can visualize one for 'Talk' involving two little talking heads facing each other. It's well established that people process images faster than text, and it would also be a god-send for those of us who occasionally wander off to other language Wikipedias in languages we can't read, and just want to check history, or find a related discussion or compose a diff or something. Mathglot (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

  Icons works well in addition to text, but on their own are known to sometimes increase confusion, esp the more there are and the more esoteric they become to try to convey the many meanings that have to be conveyed. Especially on mobile, where you have no hover labels etc this actually reduces discovery. Anyways, mobile already uses a lot more icons than desktop does. The Advanced mode for editors on mobile, currently has language, a watch star, a clock winding back, a pencil and a dropdown menu.... and I think most people on first glance have no idea what any of them do...... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support. However, as other editors have suggested, it might be better to find an alternative to the [Article | Talk] tabs to save some screen real estate. There's a lot of blank space between the language icon and the edit icon. Maybe slip in a Talk page icon in that row? Alternatively, the proposed Tools section at the end of the page looks great. - Wikmoz (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like the problem was already solved in the Wikipedia app. At the bottom of each article, there is an ABOUT THIS ARTICLE section with links to View talk page and View edit history. - Wikmoz (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support as at least a start. Mobile or not, we should always make the channels of communication clear and easy to find, and treat every reader as a potential editor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It doesn't make sense that a group that is allowed to edit cannot even view talkpages and edit-histories. Why not make pressing the existing "edit" button on the mobile site open up a sub-menu with the options "Edit article", "Go to talk page", and "View history"? I think it's unlikely that anyone technically inclined enough to edit a page would be confused by this additional step. Rabbitflyer (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strong support - Talk pages are the backbone of Wikipedia. It would help me tremendously with my work on Wikipedia in mobile. If we did it in the userspace, we should do it to others as well. Interstellarity (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
• Somewhat support to turn on now using whatever method is easiest (e.g. $wgMinervaTalkAtTop = [ "base" => true ];), then afterward engage in design discussions, such as whether it should be in the top bar or at the bottom. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Concern: encouraging more people to publish their IP address. (But honestly if this is a blocker then we should also disable IP editing until the masking question is resolved. This might be a topic for the VPP fork instead of here.)
  • Question: is there a similar switch to show it at the bottom, how it was in pre-AMC, logged-in Minerva? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 08:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: An article Talk page is of value to readers, even if they never post. It allows them to see that there have been discussions or arguments about contentious issues. Sometimes the discussion counts towards an article's credibility or otherwise. Like History, it sends the message that Wikimedia is crowdsourced, and not created by paid writers. Many readers on mobile mayn't care about references either, but we make sure they can access them. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 09:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Huggums537 (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Very Strong Support I don't understand why this is by design. Does the WMF not want anonymous users to engage in discussions on the talk page if they use mobile? That just seems like they are purposely making it easier for mobile IP editors to get banned because they have no way to try and gain consensus for an edit they made. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#0001} 19:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I use Mobile Wikipedia and it would be really convenient fo others to see talk page discussions when not at home. It might also help them learn something, which is a pretty big deal. Plutonical (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not an editor, but I love reading wikipedia and especially the talk pages, because they give a really unique view into how the site works. Sometimes, the processes that go into making something are much more fascinating than the end result. Not being able to easily access the talk pages on mobile is super annoying. 132.241.174.111 (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Request from Editing Team

Comment: Hi y'all – I work as the product manager for the Editing Team. We're actively working on a series of improvements to talk pages on desktop, and within the next few months, we'll be shifting our focus to improving talk pages on mobile.

With this in mind, can you please review – what I currently understand to be – the issues you all have raised here and let us know what issues you think are missing from this list and/or what about this list needs to be edited?

For added context: I'm asking the above because it's important to me that our team accurately and exhaustively understand the issues y'all are raising here, so that we can make sure the issues we prioritize working on in the next few months are the issues that will be the most impactful to address.

Issues

1. Meta
   1. Talking is a core part of editing and there is a large segment of people who can edit and not talk. As 192.76.8.74^[1], @Alexis Jazz^[2], @RoySmith^[3], @MarioGom^[4], @ProcrastinatingReader^[5] , and others in previous conversations have articulated^{[6] [7] [8] [9] [10]}: collaborating is an important part of writing an encyclopedia. In order to collaborate, you need to be able to talk to people. Currently, there is a large segment of people (anons editing on mobile), who are: A) able to edit and B) not able to collaborate, by way of them not having access to talk pages.
      1. The above, "...wastes time and energy for editors to post explanations/guidance/warnings for contributors who cannot respond" @Johnuniq^[11]
      2. It also helps contextualize why anons editing on mobile not having access to talk pages is problematic.
   2. It's disconcerting to learn that we – volunteers and WMF staff – do not seem to share a core assumption/understanding that people who can edit, must also need to be able to talk.
2. Talk page design
   1. People do not intuitively recognize discussion pages as places to talk about improvements to articles.^[12]
   2. People accessing talk pages on mobile lack access to important context about the conventions that guide how these pages can be used constructively. E.g. Talk page banners/templates are difficult to discover and edit notices are absent.^[13].

Additional context

Considering there are three teams within the Foundation working on improvements to talk pages, I thought it would be worth making sure you all were aware of the work that is being planned and done to improve volunteers' ability to communicate with one another.

• Editing Team | Talk pages project
  • *Reply Tool: a way to reply to talk page comments in one click
  • *New Discussion Tool: an inline form for adding new topics with keyboard shortcuts for pinging and inserting links
  • **Notifications: subscribe to receive notifications about comments posted in specific topics/sections
  • Usability Improvements: a series of improvements to help people instinctively recognize and use talk pages as spaces to communicate with other people
  • Mobile: we'll be introducing all of the above on mobile as well.
• Android Team | Communication Improvements
  • Implementing talk pages and the Watchlist natively within the Android app
  • Improving notifications so people can be aware when others are contacting them
• iOS | Notification improvements
  • A series of improvements intended to help iOS participants to know when they have a new notification without them having to check Wikipedia’s website or check pages in the app, so that they can take timely action on their notifications.

*You can experiment with the Reply and New Discussion Tools right on desktop, by enabling the DiscussionTools beta feature in Special:Preferences.

**You can experiment with Topic Subscriptions on desktop by appending ?dtenable=1 to any talk page URL like this. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I inserted a subheading to make this more easy to respond to. A quick additional point is that there needs to be a way of alerting users of mobile devices that is different from the normal semi-spam that occurs with nearly all apps competing for user attention. I have seen phones where a dozen apps have badges showing notifications—the owner ignores them as background noise. For Wikipedia use, when a user opens their browser or app, and if there are outstanding talk-page messages, there must be something like the orange-bar-of-death that more or less compels the user to respond. The suggestion that real-estate on a phone is important completely misses the point that the first thing the user should do is at least view their talk. That raises another tricky point. By convention, we bottom-post, but on a phone that might require a bunch of scrolling. I'm not sure what to do about that but ideally the current sections would be shown. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I inserted a subheading to make this more easy to respond to.

Oh, wonderful! Thank you for doing that @Johnuniq.

As for the additional issue you are raising, I'm glad you drew out this nuance. You can expect a response from me about this point next week. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

there needs to be a way of alerting users of mobile devices that is different from the normal semi-spam that occurs with nearly all apps competing for user attention.

@Johnuniq: would it be accurate for me to understand the issue that's prompted you to share the above as: "Anonymous editors do not respond to the messages others leave for them on their talk pages."

Note: I appreciate the language I proposed above does not include the solution/requirement you proposed. I've done this intentionally so as to ensure I'm accurately understanding the underlying issue any solution(s) would need to address.

By convention, we bottom-post, but on a phone that might require a bunch of scrolling.

This is a great callout and something we will need to consider as part of the work we have planned to help people identify new talk page activity. I've documented – what I understand to be – the question inside of what you are saying on Phabricator: "How might bottom-posting impact the likelihood that people accessing talk pages, particularly on mobile, will see the new messages others have left for them?". PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF): It's not quite right to sum up the issue that's prompted me in the terms above. First, some IP editors are experienced and do respond to talk page messages (so "do not respond" is over generalized). Second, that wording makes it sound as if the anonymous editor might have made a choice to not respond whereas my original concern was for the many edits made by mobile IPs and accounts where the UI does not show them that they have a talk message, and/or does not rub it in their face that the message might be something they "must" see as opposed to the normal spam from many social media platforms, and/or does not provide a simple way to respond. Finally, I am one of many editors who occasionally write detailed explanations for new users and it is destructive for editors like me to later learn that the recipient probably never even knew about my explanation. My point is that the UI is damaging the collaborative community because people like me now think that all IPs/accounts using inoperative software should be banned. Regarding "simple way to respond": I think there should be an orange bar with suitable wording that is hard to avoid. Clicking that bar would take them to the first section on their talk with the most recent date. I understand enough about code to know that would be difficult, but something much better is needed. Perhaps force all new contributors (with a cookie?) to follow a quick tutorial. That might be mandatory if any of their edits have been reverted. Thanks for taking the time to engage here. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq, I appreciate you teasing out the nuance that had been missing from describing the issue(s) as, "Anonymous editors do not respond to the messages others leave for them on their talk pages."

Combining the above, with the language @TheDJ offered , I've taken another pass at articulating the issues you referred to in the comment you posted on 00:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC).

@Johnuniq+ @TheDJ: are y'all able to review the language below and let me know if you think there are ways it could be changed to more accurately/exhaustively capture the collection of communication issues that impact people editing anonymously on mobile?

Revised problem statements

"People editing anonymously on mobile devices do not realize when other volunteers are trying to communicate with them. If by chance these anonymous volunteers do realize that others are trying to communicate with them, they have a hard time responding." PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@PPelberg (WMF): My suggestion is "Editors using mobile devices may not realize that important messages have been left for them. If they do see the messages, they may not know how they can respond." Of course some messages may not be important, but if there is a problem, the messages might be vital. I think problems can also occur for registered accounts so I omitted "anonymous". I don't use devices to edit so I'm not sure, but I have heard that it can be hard to see what they would have to do to respond ("where do I tap?"). Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I've never been convinced that most IPs read the messages on their talk pages, even on desktop. I've filed phab:T291297 to request that someone figure out whether there's much point to posting those messages in the first place (in terms of whether the IP reads the message; other experienced editors/admins might benefit from seeing that concerns are recurrent). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"Anonymous editors do not respond to the messages others leave for them on their talk pages." I'd say "Anonymous users do not realize that there are messages/that others are trying to tell them something, and if by chance they do realize, they have a hard time responding to those messages/notifications" —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I assume we're talking about talk pages only here? If so, I think this question is broken down into two parts. The first is deficiencies compared to the desktop editing experience. However, deficiencies compared to desktop is not the full list of problems with mobile talk pages or things that should be done differently on mobile, but I would have to think harder on that part to produce a list. One example: if you see a protected page and want to edit it, the workflow on enwiki is via a talk page edit request. It's a pretty poor UI esp on mobile (you can explore it by going to Donald Trump in incognito on your phone and trying to edit). Some of this falls on the community but there's not really a much better workflow possible without software changes. IIRC(?) not too long ago the "View source" button wasn't shown at all so it wasn't clear how to request a change, so I guess the situation is improving...

Although I suspect 'solutions' is separate to 'issues' I would like to take the opportunity to note, in regards to 2.2 (talk page banners), that I have some feelings on the usefulness of the banners on many talk pages. They're a mess, like look at this. It wouldn't be reasonable to show it all to mobile users, and very often there is nothing useful in them IMO (but I suspect I may be a minority view there). Conversely, see here for a useful non-generic banner and toggle "read as wiki page" on and off to see it. It's a hack used to make the message visible on mobile but apparently still only displays when you "read as wiki page"; I don't know why that feature even exists? If a solution to the talk banner issue can't be figured out, showing editnotices (somehow) would be a feasible solution. A talk page editnotice should only be placed when there's something substantive to say about that particular article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem with not showing banners to mobile users is that we expect all users who use the talk page to have read them. It is not reasonable to expect Desktop users to be aware which banners are visible to other editors and which are not. —Kusma (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

But I agree that we have far too many banners (and many of them are useless). The whole Wikiproject and assessment stuff really should be in a "meta" area, not taking up space on a discussion page. —Kusma (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader – I appreciate you sharing these thoughts. Comments and questions in response to the points you raised are below...

I assume we're talking about talk pages only here?

Yep, exactly.

if you see a protected page and want to edit it, the workflow on enwiki is via a talk page edit request. It's a pretty poor UI esp on mobile...

To confirm: are you referring to how people wanting to edit a protected page on mobile need to submit an edit request by way of starting a conversation on said page's talk page and that workflow not being straightforward? [i]

...the usefulness of the banners on many talk pages. They're a mess, like look at this. It wouldn't be reasonable to show it all to mobile users, and very often there is nothing useful in them IMO...Conversely, see here for a useful non-generic banner and toggle "read as wiki page" on and off to see it.

I've tried to put what you described into my "own words" to ensure I'm understanding this as you intended it. Can you please let me know if there is anything you would change in order for it to better reflect what you are communicating?

Peter's "own words": "Volunteers need to be able to display information to people, across devices, in ways that will enhance their understanding of: A) The subject page they are likely reading about and/or B) What to consider before participating on the talk page."

Also, these examples are great. Particularly the Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory example. Thank you for sharing them; it's clarifying to be able to see what you are imagining in your mind.

---

i.The workflow for submitting an edit request as an anon volunteer on mobile, by my count, requires ~7 less-than-intuitive steps: 1) Click edit pencil, 2) Click the View source link that temporarily appears at the bottom of the page, 3) Scroll the page, 4) Locate and click the Submit an edit request button, 5) Scroll to the bottom of the talk page's source, 6) Draft a message, and 7) Post said message. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• @PPelberg (WMF): I find the "new section" interface is pretty intuitive for new users. If that link could be more easily accessible, not just the talk page link, I think it would be more useful. I tend to use the &preloadtitle=Foo so that the subject line is filled with some default text, and I've found this useful for action links like leaving me messages about user scripts or questions about things from other projects. — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes: you sharing the experience you've had with, what we've been calling, the New Discussion Tool is helpful to know, especially as we approach offering as an on-by-default feature at the first set of Wikipedias in the coming weeks (see: phab:T271964).

  If that link could be more easily accessible, not just the talk page link, I think it would be more useful.

  Agreed...can you say a bit more here? What about its current location, how it appears, etc. do you think detracts from it's usefulness? Also: have you seen gadgets here, or on other wikis, that you think are effective at addressing the issue(s) that prompted you to share this feedback? For context: you sharing this is timely as well because we will soon be thinking about ways to make the affordance for starting new discussions easier for people to identify and access, regardless of where they are on a given page.

  I tend to use the &preloadtitle=Foo so that the subject line is filled with some default text, and I've found this useful for action links like leaving me messages about user scripts or questions about things from other projects.

  Interesting! Are you able to share a link to a diff and/or page where I can see what you're describing "in action"? PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  @PPelberg (WMF): You can see an example at User:Wugapodes/Capricorn#Feedback and bugs. The feedback link is created using the fullurl parser function which also allows you to specify the url query. So for that link, I have it add action=edit&section=new to the url which opens the new section interface as well as preloadtitle=... which fills the subject line with the currentuser parser function so that the title is unique and I know who sent it regardless of whether they remember to sign. The full code for that link is {{fullurl:User_talk:Wugapodes|action=edit&section=new&preloadtitle=Message%20regarding%20Capricorn%20from%20%7B%7Bsubst%3Acurrentuser%7D%7D}} At Wikipedia:20th anniversary we did something very similar for the "Say happy birthday" button. I set that button up so that it opened a specific section on the talk page that we made for the purpose, and it used &summary=Wishing Wikipedia a happy birthday to prefill the edit summary for readers.

  W/r/t the link placement, full disclosure, I use responsive monobook on my mobile so take my feedback with a grain of salt. At least as I've seen, the links on articles tend to just be to the talk page which for lots of readers doesn't mean much. Getting from article to talk post is a couple extra clicks in my experience. If the link were "ask a question" or "suggest an improvement" instead of (or in addition to) a talk page link, I think it would encourage more use of talk and depending on the phrasing make the posts more useful. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  I have it add action=edit&section=new to the url which opens the new section interface as well as preloadtitle=... which fills the subject line with the currentuser parser function so that the title is unique and I know who sent it regardless of whether they remember to sign.

  @Wugapodes the above is the precisely the kind of detail I was seeking...thank you for sharing it. I think the workflow you are describing will be compatible with the approach we are taking for offering preload support within the New Discussion Tool. Although, would you be open to reading the "Requirements" section of this ticket and letting us know whether you think there is anything problematic about and/or missing from what's currently written? cc @Matma Rex

  If the link were "ask a question" or "suggest an improvement" instead of (or in addition to) a talk page link, I think it would encourage more use of talk and depending on the phrasing make the posts more useful.

  Making the links themselves more action-oriented could be a successful approach. I've added this idea to the task in Phabricator we are using to track ideas for how we might make talk pages easier for people to discover. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for that info, PPelberg. At a glance, the issues summary you put together looks good and seems to capture the main points. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

  At a glance, the issues summary you put together looks good and seems to capture the main points.

  Oh good. This is helpful to know...I appreciate you stopping back by to say as much, @Sdkb. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. The same IP editrix's address my change frequently, Thus a message to an IP editor may not reach her, however blatant it is or experienced she. 94.21.184.149 (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

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

RFC: New PDF icon

Should we replace the current PDF icon? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Background

Our current PDF icon is File:Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif . To put it simply, it isn't particularly good. It's a .gif made over 16 years ago. Berrely mentioned this in WP:Discord, so I set about coming up with a modern SVG version of the file. The result was File:Icons-mini-file pdf old.svg  File:Icons-mini-file pdf.svg .

Options

There are three options that should be considered here:

• Option 1 to support using File:Icons-mini-file pdf old.svg  File:Icons-mini-file pdf.svg 
• Option 2 where you agree that we should change File:Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif  but don't like File:Icons-mini-file pdf.svg 
• Option 3 to oppose any changes to File:Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif 
• Option 4 for removing the icon entirely.

Consensus for Option 2 should be followed up in a separate discussion. [Updated 15:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]

Discussion (new PDF icon)

• Option 1. As proposer. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Comment. I have uploaded a new file that does not have the GPL copyright concerns attached to it. Please see File:Icons-mini-file pdf.svg  for the old file. Currently, the old one is at File:Icons-mini-file pdf old.svg  and the new one is at File:Icons-mini-file pdf.svg , but they should be swapped in like 30 minutes or so. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux, Anomie, WOSlinker, and Wugapodes: Sorry to ping you both again about this I have now replaced the SVG with a CC0 one per your concerns. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  The link in the summary above doesn't seem to point to that? Perhaps strike and insert to the proposal above? — xaosflux ^Talk 10:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1. Clean look and close enough to the original. I would also be open to moving away from the Adobe Acrobat logo if someone comes up with a different icon, since the company no longer holds a monopoly over the format. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 06:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. I would prefer something that isn't tied to Adobe, like File:Icon pdf file.svg: . There are many more options in commons:Category:PDF icons. – Joe (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Since this option is proving popular, but some have correctly pointed out that the "PDF" text is hard to read, I've created a version which is better optimised for small sizes: File:PDF icon.svg. Please feel free to tweak it further. – Joe (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  I tweaked it further, but I think there's a limit to how well tiny SVGs can render text: . --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  It's easy to read, in SVG format, and is clear of copyright concerns. Ultimately, it's probably the best bet for symbol replacement. Plutonical (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2, and concur with Joe that the Adobe logo is mega fail. The icon he posted in the comment above this one seems good, and it's an SVG, which is better than the tiny GIF being used currently as it can be rendered at any size without looking terrible. jp×g 06:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Man, there's some pretty great icons in that category. jp×g 06:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Do I look like I know what a JPEG is? ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 The icon must change. The old thing is a relic of the dark ages. Initially I thought ooh the adobe svg looks great. But Adobe are no longer the pdf overlords, and I don't rather like Adobe, evil empire of tech that it is. Joe's suggestion of the generic PDF SVG is the perfect solution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 as a reasonable specific replacement. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

   Eeeehhhhhhh, @Robert McClenon, are you sure you typed in the right number for your preferred option? ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 as a reasonable specific replacement. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment is licensed as copyright free but is licensed as GPL which could make a diffence as to how it can be used without any linking back to the file. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 I agree with Joe.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 07:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2; the new SVG looks wrong to me without a gradient, and I think we should move away from Adobe promotion. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Option 4 below does not seem too far fetched either. We don't seem to have this for other file formats, why display an image specifically for PDFs? ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2: PDF is no longer specific to Adobe, so let's remove their logo. Option 1 (File:Icon pdf file.svg) looks ideal when enlarged, but the letters are hard to distinguish at icon size. I suggest a new copyright-free SVG with even larger letters (They won't occupy many pixels.) Certes (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Certes, note that there are no "letters" in option 1. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Oops, I was referring to Icon pdf file.svg. Certes (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  The only candidate I can read at 16px is (File:Icon pdf file.png). Text on other versions, including the SVG auto-converted to a 16px PNG, is illegible. Certes (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• 1 or 2 is fine for me. --Izno (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Given that someone added the "ditch it entirely" option 4, put me in that camp as first preference with a fallback to 1, 2, or any other reasonable icon that isn't the old one. I am not strongly persuaded, as below in re to Ivanvector, that we must make these icons more accessible. What I would prefer to see is the block of CSS in Common.css removed and for everyone to enjoy a marginally faster page load. --Izno (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Still Option 2 (even after addition of an Option 4, edited 20:28, 9 September 2021): Although "oppose any changes" seems pretty strong, I was leaning toward Option 3 since the proposal seemed to be based on the argument It's a .gif made over 16 years ago, with no explanation of why that's bad. Personally, I'd rather use a 291-byte file than one 6 KB in size, ceteris paribus. But then, despite the weird threading, I noticed the replacement suggested by Joe Roe. It doesn't have the Adobe logo or (*gag*) name on it, it's clearly for PDFs, and it's only 2 KB in size. So if we're going to change, let's change to something like that. This one (, 707 bytes) works for me, too. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think the file size matters here, because what is actually downloaded by your browser is a server-rendered bitmap of the appropriate size, not the original SVG. That's approximately the same for all the files,[1][2] and less than 1 KB. Also, "weird threading"? – Joe (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Did not know about the different download file, thanks. And it wasn't actually so much weird threading as it was confusion on my part from JPxG's contributions. My too-quick reading saw the big file image at the upper right, which wasn't either the current icon nor the proposed replacement. When they wrote concur with Joe that the Adobe logo is mega fail I thought they were agreeing with the proposer (which you're not) that the icon was mega fail (although that wasn't clear why). Then JPxG also said there's some pretty great icons in that category [sic], which would have been more appropriate, IMO, as a reply to your 06:15 post, not as a reply to themself. I got a bit lost. Confusion on my part from scanning too quickly, and thinking too slowly. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 14:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  This is untrue in the context of CSS-loaded images (I am not sure whether you meant to distinguish). SVG images are sent as SVGs to the end user when loaded by CSS. In the context of this proposal, we would be making modifications to the CSS, so the end user would receive an SVG at the size of interest.

  In the context of any old generic file wikilink, yes, SVGs are rendered to bitmap and served as PNG automatically. Changing that behavior – to use SVGs more directly – is ancient phab:T5593. Izno (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  I suppose the problem isn't directly that "[i]t's a .gif" but rather that it has a fixed resolution looking pixelated on modern screens, while a vector version would be rendered in an appropriate resolution on any device, as Joe pointed out. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Striking my !vote until I have time to study the revised options. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 18:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Unstriking my !vote above, as I find I still prefer Option 2. The target proposal in Option 1 is now even less appealing, as the new target File:Icons-mini-file pdf.svg looks even worse at 16px on my device than the old target File:Icons-mini-file pdf old.svg. The newly added Option 4 is okay, I guess, after Option 2, but I personally appreciate having an indication of PDF-ness. I sometimes use a different reader than the one my browser tries to use by default, or I can choose to save the PDF file somewhere for later perusal. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 20:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  JohnFromPinckney, in citations there's already "(PDF)" as an indicator, seemingly added by {{Citation}}. Exactly how this is stylized is up for debate (Ahecht made a suggestion below), but the indication is already there without any icon. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, thanks, Alexis Jazz. That means we get icon and "(PDF)" with a CS1|2 template (<ref>{{cite web |title=With cite template |url=https://example.com/Adobe.pdf}}</ref>), and just the icon without one (<ref>[https://example.com/Adobe.pdf Without cite template]</ref>). What would be good for me is to drop the icon but replace it with the textual "PDF" indicator, which I guess would be an Option 5. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 19:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

References

• Option 1. That logo is still the most widely associated with the PDF format, and anything else is just making things less clear for our readers. There doesn't seem to be a clear alternative being posited (the letters in the version proposed by Joe are illegible at this resolution), and most of the reasons above seem to hinge on people's person feelings about Adobe, which shouldn't enter into this debate. Either leave well alone, or adopt the new clearer version proposed by the OP.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  "Personal feelings" is a bit dismissive. We're an free knowledge project and have a long history of supporting free software, free licenses, and free formats wherever possible. I highly doubt that the generic 90s software-looking acrobat squiggle is more widely recognised than the letters "PDF", but I agree the legibility of my first suggestion could be improved. – Joe (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  If someone comes up with an alternative that actually works, then I might support it. But I'm not going to give a blank cheque to swap an easily recognisable logo for one which might not immediately convey its meaning to our readers. "Option 2" involves dispensing with the current logo without any consensus as to what we're swapping it for, and I can't support that.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 - some generic PDF logo (i.e. not the Adobe 'squiggly triangle') to be determined later. SVG > GIF, of course, but I think we should take this opportunity to swap it for a more generic logo. firefly ( t · c ) 12:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 or 3 Option 1 is a non-starter due to license. We need something that's public domain or CC0 to avoid a requirement to link back to the file description page for attribution and/or notice of license. I wouldn't oppose an identical image with a proper license; while it's annoying to have the Adobe software's logo in there, it's also recognizable. As for that several people above seem to like, all I see at that size is a document icon with a red bar over it. The text "PDF" is not visible. Again, I wouldn't oppose an alternative that's more legible. Anomie⚔ 12:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Striking as the concerns I raised seem to have been addressed, the new image for option 1 has a usable license and people have suggested as a better choice for option 2. I don't have enough of an opinion on the current options to !vote. Anomie⚔ 16:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Let’s move away from Adobe. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 3 This is change for the sake of change and doesn't actually accomplish anything. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Pppery, the current file is 512 pixels, which is too small to be rendered properly on modern screens and appears conspicuously pixelated. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 3 or 2: the current icon is serviceable as is, but if we were to change, I'd rather something without the Adobe logo. Isabelle ^🔔 14:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Firefly and others. There is nothing wrong with using a 16-year-old icon per se, and the proposed replacement's only advantage is in file format and that's not enough reason imo to justify a change. However what does justify a change is using a generic icon that doesn't require someone knowing what the logo of a private company represents. Whatever icon we end up choosing, we should probably consider including it as an example in the PDF article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2, PDF files are no longer the sole domain of Adobe and we shouldn't be using their logo, but none of the suggested icons have been readable. I modified one of the existing PDF SVG icons on commons to make it more readable (), but if the intent is to use this at 16px, pixel art is always going to render better than an SVG, e.g. . --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 15:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  I have to admit that the 16px PNG rendering does look like a usable option and also looks way less pixelated than the current icon (where even the border displays very blurry), at least on my end. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ehhhhhhh ---- GPL are we opening a can of worms by changing from a free image to one that has to drag GPL around with it everywhere? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Leaning more towards Option 2 and using File:Icon pdf file.png or something similar, provided it is CC0 or other very-free license. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux and Anomie: Wouldn't a comment in the CSS be sufficient for linking to the license and authorship? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Nope. The GPL seems particularly weird when it comes to images, and even more weird when it comes to SVG images. The bottom line is that we need to clearly distribute the image along with the author's copyright notice and the notice that it's under the GPL, which we satisfy by linking the image to the file description page that has all that information. Hiding a comment in a CSS file, where it'll be hard to find and may be minified out, won't cut it. Anomie⚔ 21:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, I have managed to remake the SVG using stuff that was in the Public Domain. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 I find the PDF text version quite promising. The one I think is the most legible is (show) (File:Icon_pdf_file.png) which is easily readable on both mobile (both vector and mobile version). There are of course scenarios where it wouldn't be legible, but I feel the current icon would be non-distinctive under the same circumstances and I could see many readers not knowing what the acrobat icon means now a days. --Trialpears (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Go for File:Icon_pdf_file.png . It's more readable than the similar svg versions. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option generic PDF SVG Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 4 get rid of it altogether. No GPL license, no trademark (US #3652386 and #3652388, I have no idea how to link these from https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/ so search yourself, it's the squiggly triangle), no BS. The document icon with "PDF", even Joe Roe's improved version, is hard to read and ultimately provides no additional information over just the text "(PDF)". This is currently defined in MediaWiki:Common.css#L-510 btw, it's not template specific or MediaWiki default. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Opposed to any GPL-licensed image or image restricted by trademark. Would prefer CC-0 license. No strong opinions on the design itself, I'm open to a new one but don't see a serious problem with the existing image. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes: Wouldn't the trademark issue be a problem with File:Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif  as well? I'm a little confused there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not an expert on trademark, but I presume so. My understanding is that having a trademark isn't a problem per se as long as we aren't using it to mislead readers about brand identity or disparage the trademark holder. The issue isn't a legal one, but a philosophical one: I'd prefer we use free equivalents that do not have copyright or trademark restrictions whenever possible. But unless we have consensus for an option that is free of copyright and trademark, I'd rather we have some graphical representation of the PDF over nothing. So by no "serious problem" I mean that it's not enough for me to say get rid of it immediately, but I do think there is room to improve. If we are going to improve, I want us to also move in the direction of copyright- and trademark-free images, but if the option is do nothing or remove the icon without replacement, I'd rather do nothing. (NB I do like Ahect's idea of just using stylized text instead of an icon.) — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

   Question: Why is specifying the file format necessary for PDF files? ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Wugapodes, I'm fine with stylized text too. The text "(PDF)" already gets added, seemingly by {{Citation}}. I just think the icon should go away. Trademark is possibly a theoretical legal issue. The squiggly triangle in the infobox of PDF is fine because there is clearly no connection between Adobe and Wikipedia. When used as system icon of sorts, like we have it in MediaWiki:Common.css#L-510, it could cause people to believe there is a connection between Adobe and Wikipedia or MediaWiki, like us relying on Adobe software or being endorsed by Adobe. It's a theoretical issue though, this may or may not actually be a trademark violation and Adobe is unlikely to try and crack down on this kind of unauthorized usage. My main issue is also philosophical: try to avoid trademarks if possible, particularly when they're not being used for commentary. 1234qwer1234qwer4, I think traditionally this kind of indication (not just on Wikipedia) was provided to warn users to get a cup of joe while their computer chugs along for 15 minutes to load Adobe Acrobat Reader. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @1234qwer1234qwer4: PDFs are a bit of a weird file format. Sometimes when you click a link it will automatically download a file on your device, but other times it can just open up in a new tab. The biggest concern, however, is that not all mobile devices support PDFs across the board. My phone can just barely do it (and requires a download everytime I view one.. which can be a problem for larger files), so I have always found these icons helpful. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option Alexis Jazz - WP:ACCIM recommends that information should not be conveyed using only images, and while the revised icon with plain text is a slight accessibility improvement over the corporate logo version, it's still a long way off from meeting that standard. Alt text would help, but a simple (PDF) alongside the link is frankly much better and more useful than a small icon with tiny, barely-legible text. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Or something like PDF, which is reminiscent of what Google uses. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  I see this as a case of progressive enhancement given broadband speeds and the compression of PDFs (which has gotten better since PDFs stopped being all-image files), as the size was predominantly the rationale for ever indicating that a URL pointed to a PDF. Separately, CS1/2 already auto-indicates whether something is a PDF. I don't really see much cause for anyone to generally indicate something is a PDF. (This is not an opinion on this RFC per se, just making a comment about whether we should need to indicate something is a PDF.) Izno (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  There is an old-school web best practice to indicate if a link doesn't take you to a web page, since that's the general expectation (and, yes, size was part of the concern). I'm not sure of the current consensus on this matter in the web design community. isaacl (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  I haven't designed web pages since the mid-90s so I can't really comment on standards, but I'd prefer if there were some kind of indicator, text or otherwise. Compression has improved for sure but PDFs are still multimedia, even a single-page plain-text PDF can be several megabytes. Not everyone who reads Wikipedia benefits from the expansion of broadband in wealthy countries, and third-party software is still generally required to open a PDF or use their full functionality, and this can be severely prohibitive for someone on say a 14.4kbps dialup connection, or using a 2G mobile device. We still warn when a link goes to an external website, and we should do the same with multimedia. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 20:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  "We still warn"? We don't (I assume by "we" you mean MediaWiki software, please be precise if otherwise), at least not "accessibly", in the same way we don't as the would-be "replace with 'PDF' in text". Izno (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  If you look at the web, I'd say that mostly doesn't happen any longer. I mostly don't think it should, especially with the advent of "the browser does everything (video, audio, PDFs of late in e.g. Firefox, yadda yadda)". Browsers are monsters not far off from being their own operating systems (oh wait :). Izno (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Although links to PDF files often lack indicators (with the ubiquity of the format, probably due to both happenstance and successful Adobe marketing), links to video and audio generally still provide some kind of indication. Users generally want to know in advance if they're going to see some kind of audiovisual presentation. Their current browsing environment (such as alone in a room or within a crowd) and personal desires at the moment influence what type of interaction they want to have. isaacl (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, by "we" I did mean the MediaWiki software, with the little "arrow escaping the box" icon beside all external links (like this, which is, indeed, not accessible). Remember that while progress marches on, it marches past many people who read Wikipedia but don't have access to cutting-edge tech that we do in developed countries, and something as minor to us as loading a couple-megabyte multimedia file could be an outright ordeal for them. On a trip to Cuba a few years ago I turned my phone on when our plane landed, and didn't even get out of the airport before I had a text from my carrier saying I was up to $100 in roaming charges and they had disabled my data. I remember the not-too-distant past trying to edit through Opera on a flip phone, and recently made one edit from my Wii's embedded browser just to see if it would work - it did but it was frustrating. I still see more Windows XP than ChromeOS in checkuser results, and rarely even older OSes. Ivanvector's squirrel (^trees/_nuts) 16:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• With apologies to those who already knew, the choice of icon is implemented in MediaWiki:Common.css line 510. Help:External link icons#Custom link icons informs us that The image must be 16 pixels wide and cannot be SVG format. (That's in an example about adding a custom icon for .xls, but I assume it applies to .pdf too). From my rather basic knowledge of graphics, .png may be the best format for this use case. Certes (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  Certes, I had already mentioned Common.css above, but you inspired me to add an anchor to the line number. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Certes: Really, SVG is the best format because it is the most scalable (imo). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Normally, yes, but the software doesn't seem to accept SVGs here. Also, if it's shown at a fixed 16px, we should probably optimise for that, e.g. align the paper edges and the orthogonal lines of the letters mid-pixel. If the day comes when MediaWiki renders an SVG at 128px on our 16k holodisplays, we can replace the icon again. Certes (talk) 10:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  When it says "cannot be SVG format", I suspect that refers to the URL used. So https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Icons-mini-file_pdf.svg would fail, but https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/Icons-mini-file_pdf.svg/16px-Icons-mini-file_pdf.svg.png would be ok. For that matter, the restriction on SVG may be outdated (it was written in 2011), or may have been because someone's browser in 2011 didn't support SVGs there, or may be to avoid explaining that the SVG's intrinsic size needs to be 16px; at any rate, I tested it and it seemed to work fine. But I do agree that optimizing the icon for the size would be a good idea. Anomie⚔ 11:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  The "restriction" is outdated. We have been serving SVGs via TemplateStyles for CS1 for a year or two now. My guess is that it is related to IE8 and lower, which MediaWiki no longer supports. The page pointed to by Certes should be updated. Izno (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  But if you're using the png rendering of an SVG file, you get all the downsides of an SVG (e.g. blurry lines and fonts) with none of the advantages of it being scalable. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 13:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 I think File:Icon_pdf_file.png is a much better replacement, is very readable, and is simple. This is the obvious choice for me. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 03:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment This may seem like an odd question but, why is the file in a .gif format anyways? Aren't .gif format files used for animated images? But I support Option 2, per the above discussion. The current file makes it seem like the file is in Adobe Acrobat (which, a few years ago, that was probably the only way to view PDFs) when really it can be viewed in many places besides Adobe Acrobat. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  GIF format was long used for images on computer networks, pre-Internet, pre-Web, and up to now. Due to patent issues (which are no longer applicable as the patent in question has expired), there was a push to move to PNG format, and JPEG became popular for photos due to better compression and appearance (both due to higher resolution colour not being limited to only showing 256 colours and its compression algorithm being a better fit). GIFs remained in use for animated images as the original PNG specification did not support this capability. The current image being a GIF is reflective of how long ago it was put into place. isaacl (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Ah ok, thanks for informing me! I've always know .gif format files as being animated images so I was confused when I saw that the current image we're using was in the .gif format but wasn't animated. @Isaacl: Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 19:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 1 as an improvement, until someone thinks of something which is equally clear and less like its own logo. DGG ( talk ) 06:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  I'm confused as to what you mean. Many people have already thought of something equally clear and less like a logo. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 13:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not going to pick an "option" because at this point there are too many icons going around, but I support using some sort of SVG icon (preferably without the Adobe logo) that's CC0 (or similarly) licensed. I don't prefer any particular icon. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)\]

  @Tol: Option 2 does not require a commitment to any particular proposed icon. All it means is that you are against File:Icons-mini-file pdf.svg  and are also against File:Icons-mini-file acrobat.gif . That sounds like where you are basically at right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  @MJL: Ack, my mistake. Option 2 sounds good. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Question Have we asked Adobe what they will allow? I quickly skimmed https://www.adobe.com/legal/permissions/icons-web-logos.html and thought I need to ask someone with expertise in copyright law. Vexations (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Does it matter? If we don't want to use one vendor's logo for an industry-wide standard, whether they want us to use it is irrelevant. Certes (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 (use MediaWiki? fallback). I used inspect element to disable the current icon pulled from Common.css, and discovered that the fallback pdf icon is evidently [3]. This is the visual counterpart to the external link icon [4]. I suppose this is a !vote to remove the text in Common.css, and let this fallback icon take its place, since it establishes a nice visual consistency, and doesn't stick out as much as the ones that have been proposed so far, which I don't like. — Goszei (talk) 04:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of illustration in this discussion, I have uploaded the icon I am proposing to Commons; it looks like this: (for comparison, here is the external link icon that appears all over Wikipedia, part of the same MediaWiki set: ). — Goszei (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Personally I like Icon pdf file.png Seddon ^talk 18:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• I support Option 2 () because it seems the best visual indicator of a PDF. I oppose just using text; the image makes it stand out that it's a PDF. ― Qwerfjkltalk 19:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per everyone else, and in terms of replacements, first choice: PDF, second choice: File:PDF icon bold.svg , third choice: File:PDF icon.svg . Levivich 05:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Concur about change from corporate logo; but there's a problem, because we don't seem to be moving towards any consensus whatsoever about what is the substitution. I believe the PDF Google PDF icon is the most legible and does not cram white letters into a red background, which the colour-blind may not see, and that against a white sheet of paper with abnormally thick black margins. Keep it simple, really; there is no obligation for us to keep that red stripe. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  we don't seem to be moving towards any consensus whatsoever about what is the substitution that's not a problem because this discussion is explicitly not intended to determine that. If (as seems likely) option 2 gains consensus there will be a second discussion to determine what the replacement should be. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 as tie to Adobe is no longer appropriate. Use . I'm seeing that around anyway, so more and more becoming the default I guess. Herostratus (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Any icon containing the letters PDF. The best so far seems to be PDF icon.svg , followed by PDF icon bold.svg , but perhaps a version with black/dark blue lettering could be better? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 08:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe not ... PDF icon blue.svg and PDF icon black.svg — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 09:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 although I am not fond of the red letters, as it seems redundant For example MyProposal.pdf DGerman (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Related proposal: I've opened a related proposal; !voters here are invited to comment at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Proposal: Use the document icon instead of the external link icon for documents. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Perhaps the new symbol, to be determined, could be a piece of paper with a folded corner (As is seen in most file format icons) with the letters "PDF" on it? Clear of copyright concerns and adobe attachment. (EDIT: Just learned that the comments below indeed have this idea covered) Plutonical (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - PNGs including a 2x resolution version for HiDPI displays. I like with its crisp, white-on-red "PDF" banner across the file, but it needs to stay crisp on high-res displays and that PNG will look bad. User:GKFX^talk 17:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 so we can stop advertising for Adobe every time we link to a PDF. Calling out PDF links is still useful. Retswerb (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2 are equally fine for me. Whatever replaces it should be a SVG and not any other image format. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 with File:Icon_pdf_file.png or a similar option that reads "PDF". {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 01:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. The svg is good work, and an improvement over the gif. I don't dislike it, but I like supporting "undisputable" non-commercial generic work much more. So, please go with a generic svg version that has a readable PDF acronym on it. (This one looks best: ) Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 - clearer than the original and is an improvement (especially since it drops the logo attempt). Oppose option 4, as I believe there is usefulness to pointing it out in both image and text form (see WP:RICHMEDIA, among other things). Hog Farm _Talk 06:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Discourage en-xx UI variants

In follow up to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Paalika_Keka and some edit summaries at MediaWiki:Preferences-summary/en-gb, I'm proposing that we specifically add verbiage that we "discourage" our users from selecting en-ca and en-gb interface variants. These variants cause users to miss any localization to our interface messages, and put them at the mercy of either falling back to the default message - or accepting whatever the editors of translatewiki have put in place. I'd much prefer we forcibly made these fallback, but that is not currently a software option. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Pings to some recently involved editors: @PrimeHunter, Mike Peel, Redrose64, and Jdforrester:. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yep, scrap the lot. I suspect that people who choose these options do so in the belief that it will configure the text of articles - which is the one thing that it doesn't alter. Most of us know that petrol and gasoline are the same substance, but how often do words with UK/US variants come up in the interface messages? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Fully support deprecating the lot for all the reasons above. They only cause problems that we then have to unravel at VPT(!). firefly ( t · c ) 20:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I once examined the full en-gb file and it only made around ten minor spelling and punctuation differences like color/colour, not different words like petrol/gasoline. For that you lose a lot of messages customized for the English Wikipedia, e.g. with links to our policies, processes and help pages. For example, compare the edit page for a fully protected page in en and en-gb (admins must log out to see it). en-gb users sometimes cause confusion when discussing the interface with others, and some help pages don't match what they see. en-ca (Canadian English) has the same problems but few users so it rarely comes up. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support; they are nothing but trouble. Customize some of the messages within the variants to point people to how to choose the right setting. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Primefac. – SD0001 (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yep, support. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment since I was pinged. We already have a warning in the preferences: "Language (warning:selecting a language other than 'en - English' may prevent you from seeing custom parts of the interface on the English Wikipedia and you may see inaccurate external translations.):" (where the 'external translations' bit is weird/wrong - it's translations built into MediaWiki). Presumably that could be extended to warn against en-GB and en-CA. I'm generally in favour of giving people the choice, though. Also, it shouldn't be completely disabled, as it's useful to browse the interface in other languages when you're not a native language speaker (I quite regularly do this on other language wikis). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The quoted warning was added to MediaWiki:Yourlanguage this year. It is only displayed if the language is still the default en. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The bit about external translations is correct because it is done at Translatewiki.net, which is not a WMF wiki. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Mike Peel: I don't think we have the capability to remove these entirely locally, this is just about "discouraging" this right now - and may include adding warnings if your language is in those English variants. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Just to be clear, this proposal is only about the interface - and will have no impact in any way at all on the content of articles or the manual of style for engvar's in articles. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. ― Qwerfjkltalk 14:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Checking the last 30 days stats at translatewiki, en-gb has 44 translations and en-ca has only 4 translations. This shows that there are very few maintainers for these variants, which is what causes test edits and vandalism to go undetected until en.wp users notice it. Due to lack of active maintainers at both translatewiki and locally at en.wp, users who opt English variant interfaces get a suboptimal experience. So English variant interfaces should be discouraged in favour of base en. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Can we not just get en-GB and en-CA removed? What purpose do they serve? – Joe (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Joe Roe: in some cases yes - part of this proposal is to actually discourage editors from "selecting" that language - not just cleaning up the messages; some prior messaging had push back about discouraging someone from using those settings. Nothing intrusive - just labels on things like preferences warning that this option is discouraged if someone actually does set it. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  I mean removed as option, so we don't have to have to have these messages. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Probably non-zero development work from the languages team, especially since a user's interface preference can be global and not solely local. IznoPublic (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  If development work is being done, then the right solution is to fix phab:T57473, rendering the whole issue moot. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Pppery: the general tech problem is that when a localized message exists in a base language, but the user is set to use a base-variant language, when the base-variant language is not localized the user's language fallback chain doesn't bring them to the base language. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Does phab:T57473 refer to something else? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  That one seems to be about the fallback chain for base languages only, I think there is another could of phab tickets about base-variant fallbacks that I'm not remembering right now.— xaosflux ^Talk 11:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Oh. I actually meant fix the general problem, not one specific manifestation I may have linked to by mistake. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, please, discourage away. I'm tired of getting confused questions at VPT. :^) --IznoPublic (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Forcibly deprecate if we can get the developers to allow us to do it, and Support as second choice if not. No reasonable user who understands the situation would choose en-XX, and keeping the options around only confuses people and makes them waste their time figuring out the correct choice. We also ought to be doing all we can to discourage editors from wasting their energy maintaining the en-XX UI sets—having those forked makes precisely as much sense as forking English Wikipedia into American English Wikipedia and British English Wikipedia, i.e. zero sense. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. I've had a problem caused by selecting GB- User_talk:SilkTork#What's_broken?, which has now been fixed by reverting to standard en. What it offers (a simple spell check) can be problematic in itself as I am aware that I have automatically "corrected" spellings in articles which shouldn't have been corrected because that option is offered even when the article is supposed to be in American spelling. So it's a fairly useless gadget. SilkTork (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support I did set en-GB in my global preferences, and had to revert back to en after some issues in multiple projects. When I selected, I did not foresee the kind of problems it would bring, and even when facing problems, it was not always clear that they were caused by the en-GB preference. MarioGom (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The behaviour when there are customised messages (which are very common on en.wikipedia) is just confusing for users. Far worse than having to see the occasional US spelling. the wub "?!" 09:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Migrate archive URLs from WebCite to the Wayback Machine

It seems to me that WebCite is obsolete now. I suggest to perform a script run/bot run to migrate all archive links that use WebCite to archive links using the Wayback Machine. According to our article, WebCite has not been accepting new archive requests since February and the site seems to be down since August. It seems unclear if WebCite will come back or not, so I think switching to a more stable archive service seems desirable. In particular, I think in cases were the original link is dead and a WebCite archive link is used, that link should be replaced by a Wayback Machine link if possible. I do not know how many replacements this task would entail, but I expect it would be impractical doing it manually. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Seems sensible. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I have this bot WaybackMedic has approval to run and ran in the past, converting WebCite to Wayback. It's harder than it seems. The problem: WebCite for a long time was the only provider who offered a "save page now" feature, allowing users the ability to save a page at that moment in time. Everyone else including Wayback only did sporadic automated crawls (they eventually offered a SPN). As such, it was the preferred site if you wanted to save a page that had content drift eg. weather stats on a page that are continually changing. So when converting from WebCite to Wayback it's darned tricky to get it right because it requires Wayback to have an exact match of the same day, or risk creating an archive with content drift. The ideal method is copy the WebCite page to another provider, and this is something I am looking into, but don't have much more to say right now. For the record, there are 238,851 WebCite links on enwiki - manual moves are the best option but that would take years of community effort. If there is a page you really care about, recommend doing so. -- GreenC 16:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating info - I always learn something from you GreenC. Seems like the perfect task for an edit-a-thon, it is a shame we don't do those anymore :-( Thanks again for your expertise. MarnetteD|Talk 16:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks MarnetteD, I think you are right it is fascinating, many faceted. One idea is to convince the CS1|2 group to add a visible message that WebCite is deprecated and to find a new archive link. There is an RfC to support deprecation, and the situation has become worse since then. -- GreenC 17:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

CentralNotice banner for Alumni and Mentors of Russia 2021

Dear colleagues, please comment on CentralNotice banner proposal for Alumni and Mentors of Russia 2021 articles writing contest. (15st September 2021 → 30th November 2021, all IPs from Russia, Wp, 3 banner impression per one weeks). Only for russian ip. Thank you. JukoFF (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is at meta:CentralNotice/Request/Alumni and Mentors of Russia 2021. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Urgent: MCDC election watchlist/MassMessage and local info page

What should the English Wikipedia community do to communicate about the current election for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee? 03:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, the election for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (which is charged with drafting a "Movement Charter", or essentially a constitution for the global Wikimedia community) is now open and will be open for about two weeks, until 24 October 2021. (Info: announcement email, local info page.) There are three things that we should decide, hopefully while the election still has some time to run:

1. Should the election be publicized by MassMessage to eligible voters on enwiki (like for ArbCom elections)?
2. Already done - Should we post a watchlist notice for the election (like for RfAs)?
3. Already done - Should enwiki maintain and use a local info page about this election with appropriate information/FAQs and links? I started a rough draft (Wikipedia:2021 Movement Charter Drafting Committee Election) when I noticed that the meta documentation is really not well organized and the messaging thus far has already had a few screwups (the election not being announced when voting opened a day ago; the ballot said there are 19 candidates, but there are actually 70; etc.). If the answer to this question is yes, we could use that local link (instead of the meta links) for all of the local announcements (including watchlist/MassMessage if desired). In any event, please be bold in helping build out the local info page.

Because the election is over in 13 days, this RfC will by necessity run shorter than the standard 30 days. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes on 1, 2, and 3. Apologies for the haste with which this was written – it had not come to my attention sooner that there would not be coordinated communication about this election. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support all three. This is a big deal, more so than is recognized: it could fundamentally change the way the movement is organized. It's in our best interest to make sure that en-wiki is well represented in this election, and all three ideas strike me as reasonable ways to do that. (Mass messaging is a bit intrusive, but it's also quite easy to opt out of.) I also hope that, in the spirit of IAR, this RfC is closed promptly, preferably within the week. Regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support all 3, and honestly, just BOLDly do the latter two. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support all 3, do 2 and 3 ASAP. firefly ( t · c ) 07:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• [Disclosure: candidate] - 2 & 3 right now please, and support all three Nosebagbear (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• So: strongest possible oppose to sending tens of thousands of talk messages; There is already a Central Notice up for this, we don't normally put a WLN when there is already a CN - but if people want it, sure; if someone wants to run a local page more power to them. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Not even sure what a local page would need to do, but I don't really care. The candidates are already selected (meta:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates) and the voting is already open (meta:Special:SecurePoll/vote/390) - all that is left for the community to "do" really is send in voters. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Xaosflux: To this point, maybe what we need is a "5 minute guide to the MCDC elections", akin to Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections, not a main page WP:MCDCE2021 like WP:ACE2021. What I do know is that I've explained what the MCDC is and why people should care and how to vote and find out info to a dozen Wikipedians, all generally well informed, who tried to read the meta pages and couldn't understand what the MC would be, so we need some kind of local page. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

    I'm currently working on a page to show candidate's basic stances on the compass questions in a simple table format, but it is taking a while given the sheer numberJackattack1597 (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  • FWIW, I've prepped a WLN at MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-messages#Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • If this global initiative is something that needs the level of advertisement as sending talk pages to every eligible voter, that should be requested upstream, of all WMF projects I'm not aware of any others doing something like that. While this seems important, it doesn't seem to be at the point of some sort of extinction level event for the English Wikipedia. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Do 2 and 3 (right away), neutral on 1. In a situation like this, the RfC should run about 30 minutes. The ArbCom messages are kind of irritating, but at least I know what an ArbCom is; I fear I am the only Wikipedian who had never heard of the Wikimedia Movement, a Movement Charter, and did not know we needed to draft one and were going to have elections for it. Now I have to weigh the three candidates whose names I even recognize against the other 69 people. My point: I am dubious as to how much acceptance editors will have for a MassMessage about something they've never heard of. Or maybe I'm the only ignorant one here. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC) Edited: apparently there are 72 candidates. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 12:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Confusion I just quickly read Wikipedia:2021 Movement Charter Drafting Committee Election, meta:Movement Charter and meta:Global Council and I don't really have the slightest idea what this election is about or in what way it would affect the English Wikipedia (or any other Wikipedia). Well, I get it is essentially about meta:Movement Charter, but what effect this "charter" will have/is supposed to have on the project (EN Wikipedia) is not readily clear to me. I wish someone who understands could write up a quick overview on the immediate effects this would have on EN Wikipedia. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Toshio Yamaguchi: This question is precisely the most important reason to have a local discussion and info page. The short answer is, the Movement Charter will regulate how all future changes to the Wikimedia movement will occur. It will constitute a "Global Council" (m:Global Council) with the authority to represent the global movement to the Foundation; depending on what the MCDC writes, it could also have a budget, staff, lawyers, power to adopt binding global policy and overrule local projects, the ability to consent to changes to WMF-project relations going forward, etc. Essentially, it will be a GovCom for the entire global Wikimedia movement, and the MCDC is in charge of saying how it will be formed: whether it will be elected or appointed (or a mix), what diversity requirements there will be, what voice each project will have in selecting it, what powers it will have, etc. Enwiki is likely to have a fairly small share of the seats on the council. I hope this helps – and if you can help translate that into a concise statement of why this is important, please BOLDly edit Wikipedia:2021 Movement Charter Drafting Committee Election to say so. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@L235: that's actually a really clear and concise summary. I'd encourage you to add it to that page! The Land (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Notice WMF has placed an update on this here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Voting_to_elect_members_for_the_Movement_Charter_drafting_committee_is_now_open. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• So: Definitely 2. Probably 3. Neutral on 1, but that's getting more support than I expected so far. Regarding a local info page - anything that demystifies what the whole thing is for the English Wikipedia audience would be a good move. The Meta documentation has improved a bit during the course of today, but there's much more to do on that. Happy to contribute to that (albeit, I'm somewhat limited in what I can say as I'm one of the candidates). Regards, The Land (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support all three, more communication is definitely a good thing.Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose mass message please don't flood my notifications when we already have a site banner. Support watchlist notice, neutral on local page though if someone wants to maintain it, more power to you. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Wugapodes: Hm, I would argue that a mass message does better than a site banner to (1) overcome banner blindness, (2) link to the local info page and/or 5-minute-guide page to emphasize the importance of the election (surely as or more important than ArbCom elections), and (3) send emails to those with that enabled. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  @L235: I think you overestimate how many people care to read through 70-odd statements from people they don't know for a position on a committee they've never heard of. While I obviously agree about the importance of the meta election, simply being important doesnt imo justify tens of thousands of notifications that are redundant with information in two other prominent locations. I skimmed my user talk history and I don't think I ever got a mass message about Board elections despite that being far more important and easier to understand. The way to combat banner blindness is to design better banners, not bludgeon people with information about things they already chose to ignore or participate in. Not everyone is interested or cares about what happens on meta, and those who do have numerous ways of finding out. For all the talk of banner blindness, you forget that constant useless mass messaging risks people opting out of mass messaging in general. We already send out tons of ACE mass messages, and there are almost 5,000 editors who opt out of mass message delivery. It's easy to fix banners, it's hard to get people to resubscribe to mass messages. Besides, if someone is so disconnected from the goings-on of enWiki that they missed a central notice and watchlist banner for weeks then I doubt a talk page message and email are going to be what spurs them to read almost four score nominations for a committee they probably haven't heard about. I just don't see the value in flooding watch lists, talk pages, and email inboxes with information already widely available for an election of niche interest to most people. Is it important? Sure, but that's why we have a banner at the top of every page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I've gone ahead and added the watchlist notice WP:BOLDly in light of the discussion above. Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• Note: options 2 and 3 are already done - so unless someone wants to argue to UNDO them, this is really just about #1 now. While shorter than 30 days seems OK, before running and sending huge numbers of talk messages, I think this should be at the least "very well attended" for that part. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: I have been watching this conversation, and talked briefly with Mz7 before he implemented the watchlist notice confirming that I saw consensus for it. I agree with you that per our polices, guidelines, and procedures, we do not necessarily have to wait 30 days to find consensus, especially in this case, but given the magnitude of the impact, more editor participation will be required. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support all 3, this may be the most important election in Wikimedia history The stakes of this election include great influence on some percentage of Wikimedia donations. This Movement Charter is going to be a governance document lasting at least 10 years, and in that time, the Wikimedia Foundation will collect about US$1 billion in donations to the Wikimedia community. This governance document could direct allocations of anywhere between 10-70% percent of that. Conservatively, I think at minimum this document will send $100,000,000 within 10 years to causes, purposes, people, and places which previously were never considered or in discussion for getting funding. This is a really big deal. This situation and notice is a candidate for doing more communication in more channels than we ever have for any other community notice previously. However, this election is only part of this, and we might want to direct people's attention to a landing page for the part which comes immediately after and is just as impactful. After we elect these drafters, while they are writing the Movement Charter, anyone in the Wikimedia community can post comments to them on talk pages. Think of this like the United States Bill of Rights. If someone suggests text for the drafters to include, then they may put that in the Charter which would make it a Wikimedia Movement constitutional right. Beyond voting for drafters, people should be getting ready to give comments to the elected drafters. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose 1, but Support 2 and 3. 1 strikes me as unnecessary and redundant to it being listed on WP:CENT and having a blurb about it at WP:AN, not to mention a CentralNotice and Watchlist notice as well. That's plenty of ways to get the word out. I'd also like to note that we wouldn't mass message users during steward elections, so I don't see a reason to do so in this case either. My apologies, it seems that this discussion is what's listed on WP:CENT. I've struck part of my comment accordingly, but I would strongly support listing Wikipedia:2021 Movement Charter Drafting Committee Election on there once the dust settles from this RfC. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC) (Edited comment due to mistake about WP:CENT. OhKayeSierra (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC))

WikiFiction

I would like to propose creating a multiauthor space for creative writing: WikiFiction (or WikiNovelist).

Wikinovelists should contribute with donations to be able to participate in multiauthor books and everyone should previously register in order to contribute. This process will hopefully keep bored haters/destroyers away from busy creators -or modern serial witch burners from potential intelligent life out there.

WikiFiction could be a way to get funds for this or other wikimedia projects.

This new platform could recycle the current Wikipedia platform, with the added registration requirement, perhaps with a valid cellphone. A maximum of authors per book should be set for a given time, to avoid some books getting too crowded and the content confusing and neverending changing.

There should be authors and editors, who could review the final book for coherence. All versions should be stored until the final version is agreed. Authors and editors could go by name or nick, but all should be registered with a way to prove identity.

Any profits from any WikiFiction book should ideally be offered to non-profit charity organisations, chosen by votation of main authors, with a percentage dedicated to maintain WikiFiction.

Part of the donations for wikinovelists could be saved in a fund, which will offer free passes for those who could not contribute otherwise. So a young Leonardo da Vinci from a remote village somewhere in this planet, could still contribute to a book with perhaps unique ideas, even if her income is zero.

Creative writing or imagination in general is urgently needed to find solutions for the future we are facing. Encyclopedias and history are giving us great (or terrible) ideas from the past. Some novels (a bit as science) can be a valuable means to predict or create the future.

I will contribute with a first novel first chapter idea as a test. It is aimed to be a multiauthor book that would focus on a paradigm change related to Climate, from looking at plastic or recycling as the big problem here, to admitting we human overpopulation are the real issue on this planet. The book will revolve around that.

This creative piece of work requires the input of scientists, modern philosophers, social anthropologists... And needs to start rolling asap... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.252.121.207 (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

You are not just on the wrong page for this, you are at entirely the wrong project. Your suggestion is completely outside the purpose of Wikipedia. You could try reading meta:Proposals for new projects. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

This thing is just not for Wikipedia. It might not even be for Wikimedia. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 09:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chicdat: Agreed. The entire purpose of the wikimedia foundation is to run free, open-content wiki projects. A project where you need to pay for access, where only a limited number of people are only allowed to edit each page, and where registrations with a phone number is required to edit is completely at odds with what the foundation is about. There's also the rather strange proposed structure here where donations go to other charities, rather than funding the rest of the foundation? It honestly reads like a proposal for a completely separate website. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that you will find that the Wikimedia Foundation's charitable purpose is "education". US federal law names six common charitable purposes for a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization. See also https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-purposes. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): Indeed, but the Wikimedia foundation mission statement [5] makes it clear that the way they intend to go about providing educational materials is by running multilingual wiki projects. My point was that a website where you need to pay/"donate" to be able to edit and where editing is restricted to a small number of people would be entirely contrary to the concept of running wiki based projects, which are generally supposed to be reasonably open and editable. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct. IPv4 nominator, the closest you'll ever get to this is a different website entirely. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The mission statement says that the goal is "to collect and develop educational content". It is not clear to me why crowd-sourcing novels should be considered any form of "educational content". Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Youth Wings of political parties templates

Hello,

When I was navigating through articles of Pioneer & Communist Youth Leagues, I've found that all the templates (i.e. navboxs) related to youth wings of political parties are uncategorised, or categorised for geographic logic, indifferent of the ideology, the location or the level in the geopolitical hierarchy of the subjet. So, I've tried to found if there is an already created template category where to add these templates, but all I've found is Category:Political party templates, Category:Political ideology templates or Category:Organization templates.

I've therefore two questions:

• Is it a good idea? (I think so, but as I'm recurrent contributor to the UNCAT project, I want to ask some questions of principle, in order to know the opinions of the contributors and to be able to clarify certain dilemmas I can ask myself when a categorization seems to me to be done.)
• If yes, can someone help me for the creation of the best-named categories (if necessary) in the relevant parent categories, to make a list of templates to categorise and to do the job.

--Anas1712 (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

PS: If not in the best place to ask, please older people in the community indicate me where to repost the asking.

Would you please translate the french part of your statement, to english. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Y --Anas1712 (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I've left a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Enhancing Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages

Hi, I recently write a bot to create article lists in other languages. The bot is running in jawiki and zhwiki now, you may see the result, the bot will create a list for every language like this. How about enhancing Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages like this? Kanashimi (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That page is marked historical, so if you can revive it with a bot, please do! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Now preparing... Kanashimi (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kanashimi: please note, to run a bot on the English Wikipedia you should request approval here: WP:BRFA. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I will wait for some days if there are other opinions. Kanashimi (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure! If you bot will only being updating 1 page (for now at least) it should have no problem getting approved. You are also welcome to do low-volume testing in your bot's own userpage (e.g. User:Bot/SampleReport). Having an example is a good way to demonstrate. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe we can discuss related issues about this task here, so that we do not need to open a BRFA but find that it is worthless, does not meet the requirements, or does not feasible at last. Kanashimi (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)