WP:Village pump (idea lab)#Proposed mechanisms for improved Wikimedia database distribution

The Biodiversity Heritage Library is very widely used here and on other projects and is an invaluable reference, but it [https://about.biodiversitylibrary.org/call-for-support/ is currently in a bit of trouble] and looking for "partnership opportunities to support its operational functions and technical infrastructure" after the Smithsonian Institution opted to "conclude its long-standing role as BHL’s host on 1 January 2026". Is the WMF able to help in any way? Cremastra (Go Oilers!) 23:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:The people who can answer that question are unlikely to see it here. Somewhere on Meta is probably your best bet, but I don't know off the top of my head where. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:I like the idea! I've emailed answers@ for guidance on where the best place for this suggestion would be. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! Cremastra (Go Oilers!) 18:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I heard back a couple days ago; they said they would raise it internally and get back to us. I'll let everyone know when I have further updates :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Further update: the relevant WMFer is out of office for a minute, so we are still waiting to hear back. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

:@Cremastra @HouseBlaster this is a great idea, I use the BHL all of the time writing species articles. Without it a lot of good information would be lost and completely inaccessible, especially for obscure species where much of the available information is in the original paper on them, which the BHL often preserves. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Howdy! I've been meaning to propose something like this for a while, based on an idea of {{u|Tamzin}}'s that we fleshed out together – there's a gap in our coverage for people and institutions who aren't quite notable but have a lot of notable creations or alumni. They don't qualify for standalone articles, but there are multiple equally plausible redirect targets, so they just remain redlinks. For example, Neal Agarwal is the creator of Stimulation Clicker, The Password Game, Internet Roadtrip, and Infinite Craft, but there's only really one source directly about him and all of these would be equally plausible redirect targets. Under policy, there could be a list article under the WP:LISTN clause allowing navigational aids, but local consensus enforcement of that idea is very hit-or-miss, so it wouldn't be a great use of time for someone to go around and start creating those lists.

What would fill that gap is a type of article that relies on the WP:LISTN allowance for navigational aid lists, but makes it clear that it's not a pure list, the way WP:SIAs are a special type of list. So I've mocked up the concept of a directory article, a content page that functions basically like a multi-entry soft redirect. See User:Theleekycauldron/List of projects by Neal Agarwal. Would love to hear y'all's feedback, either here or at the proposal talk page – thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:This kind of reminds me of Navigation pages above! This idea of "directory navpages" for non-notable folks was brought up as an argument against navpages, but also fits the "multiple equally plausible redirect targets" spirit, and might absolutely be something to consider. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:52, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Can't believe i didn't notice that at all! I like that concept, but I do share a lot of the concerns people are expressing about navpages in that section – directory articles are a narrower idea because they play into already-existing notability guidelines. "Here's a bunch of places you could read about this person/event" might be useful some day, and that does fit into the broader concept of a multi-soft redirect, but it can't be written as a list article so it'd require some significant new policy. I'm mostly looking at lists of notable articles that fit into the scope of "projects by [creator]", "alumni of [institution]", "publications/projects by [institution]", "subsidiaries of [institution]". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:WP:NCREATIVE#3 grants presumptive notability to people with several notable works. I would argue that this criterion applies to Agarwal. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::One of the unfortunate conflicts at AFD is that some editors, usually seeing themselves as having high standards, reject the idea that a couple of sources about A, a couple of different sources about B, and a couple of different sources about C can all add up to a decent Wikipedia article about A+B+C. They're usually saying "Where are links to at least two independent secondary sources containing at least 300 consecutive words exclusively focused on whatever we named the article? Because obviously these seventeen sources about the {author's many books|company's many products|singer's many albums|director's many films} can't result in an article that merges all of the {books|products|albums|films} into a single thing and gets titled by the maker's name."

::I think we should explore addressing the question of how to evaluate such "merged up" articles directly, preferably directly in the WP:GNG itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, this is an important question! The AFDs I've seen tend to agree that WP:NCREATIVE#3 can function as a standalone SNG if sources focus on the creator's works. There is much less agreement about related criteria such as WP:NACTOR#1, and whether a company/organization can pass WP:NORG just by having notable products. I will admit that I previously PRODed an article about a company with two notable products that had their own articles. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think this is a good idea -- actually I was looking for an article on Neal Agarwal given there were so many game articles earlier anyway. I think this kind of thing, listing all the scattered articles relating to him in a user facing way (no, categories do not count) would be useful. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:This is a better idea than the navpages because these have clearly-defined boundaries. The reason I ultimately turned against nav pages was because they often turned into a sort of poor-man's search result page, with an awkward smattering of tangential sections and no clear inclusion criteria. Cremastra (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Compared to "navigation pages", directory articles may be better-thought-out and better-named. Certain existing stubs, such as Infinite Frameworks, could potentially be reclassified as directory articles. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Had this issue recently. Several editors and I agreed that an article had an NPOV issue, but people didn't have the time to work on them. Another editor removed the NPOV tag due to inactivity.

In Template:POV#When_to_remove, we currently have that the tag can be removed if a discussion becomes dormant. Given Wikipedia editors may get busy, how much sense does it make to remove NPOV tags for this reason?

Should they ever be able to be removed for inactivity or should we specify a minimum time for this such as a year? Bogazicili (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think it should be that the editors who want the tag get responded to and do not respond further. Like the discussion is inactive but the last word says the tag should be removed. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:24, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'm going to move this to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) after getting some feedback.

::{{u|Aaron Liu}}, how about changing 3rd in Template:POV#When_to_remove?

::Current: {{tq|3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.}}

::option 1: In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant without any agreement.

::option 2: In the absence of any discussion, or if at least six months have passed and the discussion has become dormant without any agreement.

::What do you think? Bogazicili (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::A time requirement makes no sense and said time requirement isn't the problem with your background situation. I slightly like the first one but "any agreement" should be changed to "consensus". None of these are what I was talking about but the first one would be an improvement. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::The time requirement is there because many pages in Wikipedia is not as active as people think

::::For consensus, will we require an RfC for an NPOV tag? Bogazicili (talk) 21:55, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I still don't get what you mean about the time requirement. Tags are for adding pages to categories so that people who check these categories can act on recommendations to improve a page. They are for attracting activity.{{pb}}Not many things require an RfC. If this can be resolved through a discussion on Template talk:NPOV, it need not an RfC. See WP:RFCBEFORE. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Honestly, while this might be a slightly radical suggestion... what if POV tags didn't display any visible indicator on the article? Or if we moved the indicator to the bottom and made it much smaller and less visible? I feel like the big visible THIS ARTICLE HAS POV PROBLEMS banner is the real reason we have so many problems and disputes over POV tags, because it incentivizes people who have issues with an article to use the tag as a "warning" or "badge of shame", which it isn't supposed to be. While it's true that the visible tag might attract people to talk and that having it as a badge of shame can spur people towards compromises, the flip side is that it leads to lots of wasted time and effort arguing over tags as opposed to trying to improve article content. If its main purpose is categorization, and we specifically don't want people to use it as a highly-visible warning or badge of shame, then... why is it so highly-visible? Why not just make it the category and nothing else? --Aquillion (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Interesting suggestion, though that would lose the ability to use the talk parameter in the tag to point responding editors to the relevant discussion. -- LWG ^talk 15:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That wouldn't solve the scenario that prompted nom to suggest this—a(n unorganized) backlog drive against the NPoV tag. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::One reason for the banner is to warn readers that the article isn't (or might not be) neutral. When there are actually POV issues this is good as we don't want to mislead readers if we can help it. However, we are misleading readers if the banner is present but the text is neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That’s how I’ve always interpreted tags, but as WAID says it violates WP:NODISCLAIMERS Kowal2701 (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Specifically, it doesn't align with the sentence that says {{xt|"Maintenance templates should not be used to "warn the reader" that an article needs improvements or that a Wikipedia editor disagrees with the current state of the article"}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think it depends in part on the current state of the article and how the discussion went. I suggest the following as rules of thumb (explicitly not to be interpreted rigidly): If the person seeing the old tag things there are (still) POV issues with the current version of the article the tag should remain and they should try and revive the discussion (possibly seeking input from a WikiProject) or, ideally, fix the issues.

:::If the person seeing the old tag doesn't see any issues with the current version, then if the article is in an objectively very different state to the one it was in when the discussion ended then they should remove the tag. If someone objects to this then the second person should (re)start discussion as there are now at least two editors paying attention to the article.

:::If the article is in a similar state to how it was when the old discussion happened then, the tag should remain if there was general agreement or consensus there were POV issues but no agreement/consensus about how it should be fixed. Today's editor should probably try and restart discussion.

:::If there was no consensus/agreement about whether there were POV issues, then try and restart discussion, if that doesn't work or the editors previously discussing matters are no longer active then remove the tag. If someone objects to this, then the person who objects should (re)start discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::This is much more nuanced then current guidance in the NPOV tag. Bogazicili (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I see that as a feature not a bug. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{replyto|Thryduulf}} it's not a bug, but should it be modified? Specifically the second part: {{tq| 3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.}} Bogazicili (talk) 19:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think it should be modified to be something along the lines of what I wrote above. Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::How about: {{tq|3. In the absence of any discussion, or depending on the current state of the article and how the discussion went}}

::::::::I used your wording. Bogazicili (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::No, that's the exact opposite of what should be taken from my comment. The vague introduction isn't very useful (and on its own is possibly worse than what we currently have), the important and useful part is the actual guidance. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::That's too vague to answer anything and raises a lot of questions. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::What we have right now is also vague and raises a lot of questions: Template:POV#When_to_remove

::::::::::We also don't seem to have space for a paragraph of detailed instructions

::::::::::Another solution would be to simply remove the following part: {{tq|3. In the absence of any discussion,or if the discussion has become dormant.}}

::::::::::And perhaps add another sentence: {{tq|4. When not sure, raise the issue in the talk page}} Bogazicili (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::It's true that what we have is not great, but that's not a reason to replace it with something even vaguer. I'm not sure why you think that there isn't space for something more detailed? It is usually possible to condense what I write into something more concise, but even if you were to take my suggestions verbatim it would fit perfectly fine. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::If you want you can make a proposal.

::::::::::::Otherwise I think "or if the discussion has become dormant" should simply be removed.

::::::::::::If you make a proposal, I'll add it as an option if and when I bring this as a proposal. Bogazicili (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I don't think that should be removed. We need to be able to remove these tags when:

:::::::::::::* nobody ever explained ("in the absence of any discussion") or

:::::::::::::* there was a brief or useless discussion ("if the discussion has become dormant").

:::::::::::::If there isn't a provision to remove in the case of dormant discussion, then Alice can say "This puts too much emphasis on him and not enough on her", Bob can reply "Maybe, but I don't think it's big a problem" – and then they both walk away, and the tag is stuck there for eternity, because there is no consensus that the problem was resolved (#1), the alleged problem was properly identified (#2), and there was a discussion on the talk page (#3). The purpose of "If the discussion has become dormant" is to deal with situations in which nobody cares enough to resolve the problem, or the discussion goes nowhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Then we need to add something concise for points covered by Thryduulf.

::::::::::::::For me, the whole thing that prompted this was that people acknowledged the issue in the talk page, but no one got around to fixing the article. In that case, the POV tag shouldn't be removed due to dormant discussion. Bogazicili (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The template "may" (as in "allowed to") be removed under those circumstances.

:::::::::::::::The template is not required to be removed under those circumstances.

:::::::::::::::If you think that the POV tag shouldn't be removed from that article under its specific circumstances, then nobody is forcing you to remove it.

:::::::::::::::If someone else removes the POV tag from that article under its specific circumstances, then no rule prevents you from re-adding a new one, and starting a new discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I know but the last point requires supervision and following the page changes. Bogazicili (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I've thought about this before. I ultimately think it won't work.

:I think I'm more insistent than average about the POV tags not being used in violation of Wikipedia:No disclaimers. "Warning the reader" that some editor disagrees with the article, but can't get their POV to dominate, is an ongoing problem, especially in less visible pages. We also have a problem, for certain subsets of articles, that an NPOV-policy-compliant article gets tagged as "promotional" because it accurately and appropriately reports positive things about the subject. "If it doesn't disparage, it's not neutral" is a view held by only a small minority of editors, but they're disproportionately likely to add these tags. So I agree: There is a real problem associated with this set of maintenance tags.

:I have, over the years, made several trips through lists of elderly POV tags ([https://bambots.brucemyers.com/cwb/bycat/Medicine.html#Neutrality like this one] – warning: large page), and I found that many of them could be removed as stale. Either a significant problem didn't exist in the first place, or it was fixed long ago.

:However, I have also found that many other POV-related are there for obvious reasons. They are, in my experience, a minority of what you'll find in :Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes, but they are not a very small minority. Some of these are also not easy to fix.

:The end result is that I concluded that any automatic system is going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. What we need is something more like a backlog drive to reduce the oldest ones. For example, there are only about 226 articles with POV tags from 2014 to 2019. Maybe we could try to clean those up? Or at least review them, to make sure they're real POV problems, and not just (e.g.,) {{tl|third party sources}} problems? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{replyto|WhatamIdoing}} I realized I was vague with the title of this topic. What do you think of POV tag being manually removed after few months because the talk page discussion is not active? Even though several editors have acknowledged the POV issues. Bogazicili (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I think that it both is, and should be, "legal" to remove a POV tag after a few months (or even just one), if the talk page discussion has stopped.

:::Sometimes the removal is what prompts the discussion to restart, and that should be counted as a win for removing the tag (even if it's immediately reverted back in).

:::However, I also believe that editors should not make edits they personally disagree with. So if you see that the article has a POV tag, you (personally/individually) think that tag is warranted, and you see that the discussion either never started or has petered out, then you might prefer to choose one of the other, equally "legal" options available to you, and instead start a discussion, or try to fix the problem, or ping the people who previously discussed it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::For really old ones such as those from 2014, they can simply be removed? I mean if someone had the time, the preferable thing to do would be to check if the issue has been resolved, rather than simply removing the POV due to discussion being dormant.

::I would support Neutrality issues backlog drive, that actually makes a lot of sense. Bogazicili (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::There's only one left from 2014; it's Slovakization#De-Magyarization. (The rest of the article has similar 2024 tags.) It could be removed, or perhaps one of the WikiProjects on the talk page (Ethnic groups, Slovakia, Hungary, Europe) could fix it.

:::A backlog drive that divided up the oldest tagged across relevant+active WikiProjects might work. That would be a relatively small list for each group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::For example, I'd just remove this and mention it in the talk page, no reliable sources seem to be in Talk:Slovakization#POV,_inacurracies. But I am not going to remove it now as I have not read the entire discussion in the topic.

::::That's why I said a standardized template might help. Bogazicili (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Since we struggle to get editors to start a discussion at all, I'm not sure that we could realistically get them to start a specific, pre-formatted discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::It would remind them to add missing details. For example, a link to a reliable source.

::::::Without adequate information, the POV tag could simply be removed. Bogazicili (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::The only issue with the Neutrality issues backlog drive is that editors who may have no idea about the issue making decisions.

::A standardized neutrality issues template for the talk page might help when adding POV tags. Things such as the issue, the sources, etc. Those without talk page discussions could be removed. Bogazicili (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Imo WP:DRIVEBY tags should always be removed, even when they explain in the edit summary. Some POV issues are mammoth tasks, like Ian Smith, others too technical for most people. I like the idea, but encouraging POV tagging rather than WP:FIXIT is something we should steer clear from. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If the effect of having a routine backlog drive is that it takes the onus off of the tagger to work towards fixing it, then it may be detrimental. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Working only on articles tagged in the previous decade, many of which probably don't qualify for the tag any longer, might not have that effect, though. "See? You don't get a permanent badge of shame just by driving by and dumping a tag on the article" might encourage solving problems, or at least removing unexplained tags.

::::I don't agree in principle that a maintenance tag shouldn't be added by a person who can't fix the problem. Sometimes, pointing out the existence of a problem actually is helpful. But if that's all you are willing or able to do, then the existence of the problem needs to either be obvious or adequately explained. "I spy with my little eye a POV problem that nobody else can see" is not okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|LWG}} does a lot of work on this. See the above discussion re a backlog drive Kowal2701 (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• I don't think that a hard-and-fast number is going to be helpful; it depends on context. For example, in a high-traffic article where there's a lot of discussions about other stuff, or where there was clear discussion that obviously failed to reach a consensus, the fact that a POV tag is not being discussed any further could cause it to "expire" within weeks or even days; it's not serving a useful purpose, further movement is unlikely and leaving it there risks becoming a badge of shame, which is forbidden. On the other hand, on an extremely low-traffic article it wouldn't be inappropriate for a POV tag to last years, especially if nobody has objected to it and it's clear there's a general agreement it needs to be fixed (and just a lack of people to do it.) The key point is the purpose the tag is serving; is it likely to lead to further discussion and improvement? Or are people trying to leave it there to "warn" other people that the article is POV? The latter is not acceptable. --Aquillion (talk) 13:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping {{ping|Kowal2701}}. Grinding through the backlog of POV tags has been one of my main wiki endeavors over the years. I have personally removed thousands of tags and I estimate that 80-90% of those required no action other than removal, but about in about 10-20% of cases I make at least some edits before removing the tag. Thryduulf's rules of thumb describe my practices pretty well, but I have some more elaborated thoughts on the matter on my user and talk pages. Every tag that still remains in the 2014-2020 range is an article that I have put eyes on and at least initially did not feel comfortable removing the tag without closer investigation or some edits, either because I saw evident outstanding issues or because the subject was complex and outside my area of knowledge. I would welcome a backlog drive to clean those up. The 2020-2024 date range are articles I haven't looked at yet. I expect that applying Thryduulf's principles to the articles in the 2020-2024 range, we could uncontroversially remove the vast majority of them. But I don't think a timeout is strictly necessary - currently we only get new POV tags at a rate of 3-4 per day so that's a very manageable rate to deal with once we clear the outstanding backlog. -- LWG ^talk 13:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Thank you for your work in this area (and thank you, @Kowal2701, for pinging LWG to join this discussion). Since you have already checked the 2014–2019 ones, it sounds like we should push those to more knowledgeable groups.
• :@Cryptic, imagine that I wanted a list of every article from :Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes from June 2014 through :Category:Wikipedia neutral point of view disputes from December 2019, associated with every active WikiProject on its talk pages, split by WikiProject. For example:
• :* WikiProject Foo – Example, Metasyntactic variable, Case
• :* WikiProject Bar – Example, Bar (river morphology)
• :Is that something that Wikipedia:Request a query could produce? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Rather you'd just ask there instead of pinging me to random pages. quarry:query/94925. —Cryptic 19:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{thank you}}! (I'll try to remember that in the future.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• The one thing we DON’T want is POV editors saying: “If I do nothing, and allow the template to expire (and be removed)… my POV will “win” and remain in the article” Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::If the POV editor does nothing, placing a tag is unnecessary, as the POV material can simply be removed or revised. The POV family of tags are for disputes - if all active involved editors are in agreement, there is no dispute. -- LWG ^talk 16:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No, tags are NOT limited to disputes. They are also notifications that an issue needs to be addressed. Doing nothing and “waiting out the template” is not addressing the issue. It’s gaming the system. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Well, @Blueboar, let's game this out.

::::If the article is biased, we might see Editor A tag the article. Editor B, who approves of the current/biased state of the article, does nothing to resolve the complaint. What could happen then?

::::# Other editors might see the tag/check the category. They see Editor A's explanation on the talk page and/or already understand the problem. They resolve the problem (despite interference from Editor B) and remove the tag (despite objections from Editor B). Net result: Benefit from tagging; benefit from removing. (This is the best-case scenario.)

::::# Editor A might successfully resolve the problem herself. Net result: Neither harm nor benefit from tagging; benefit from removing when it is resolved.

::::# Editor A might (i.e., should) post an explanation on the talk page. Editor B disagrees with her. The discussion between the two of them resolves nothing. They might use other dispute resolution methods (e.g., a Wikipedia:Third opinion). Net result: Neither harm nor benefit from tagging itself; the benefit came from other dispute resolution methods.

::::# Editor A might post an explanation on the talk page. Editor B might not see it. There might be no response from anyone. Much later, Editor C removes the tag. Net result: No benefit from tagging. Possible future benefit from the tagger being "required" to explain the tag on the talk page (someone might eventually see that explanation on the talk page). No benefit and no (new) harm to the article from removing the tag. The biggest "harm" is that the removal reduces the chance of a future editor finding the talk-page discussion.

::::# Editor A might post an explanation on the talk page. There might be no response from anyone. Much later, Editor C, seeing the explanation, decides to leave the tag in place, in the hope that some hypothetical future editor will know how to fix it. Net result: No harm from tagging, and possibly a small benefit, since it prompted Editor C to look at it and silently confirm that the problem exists. (Not removed, so no result from Editor C's inaction.)

::::# Nobody fixes the article; nobody explains what the problem is. Later, Editor C, not seeing any explanation and not understanding the concern, removes the tag. Net result: No practical benefit from tagging, but no significant harm from either the tagging or the removal.

::::If the article is not biased, we still might see Editor A tag the article. Then:

::::# Other editors might see the tag/check the category. Realizing that it's wrong, they promptly revert it. Net result: Harm from improper tagging; benefit from removing.

::::# Other editors might see the tag/check the category. They might overly trust that it is accurate and attempt to "fix" the article. Net result: Harm from improper tagging; chance of harm from inappropriate "fixes" (but greater chance of net improvement).

::::# Editor A might try to "fix" the article herself. Net result: Harm from improper tagging; harm to the article from fixing what ain't broken.

::::# Editor A might (i.e., should) post an explanation on the talk page. Editor B disagrees with her. The discussion between the two of them is unlikely to resolve anything. They might use other dispute resolution methods (e.g., a Wikipedia:Third opinion). Net result: Harm from improper tagging; benefit from other dispute resolution methods.

::::# Editor A might post an explanation on the talk page. There might be no response from anyone. Much later, Editor C removes the tag. Net result: Harm from improper tagging; benefit from removing.

::::# Nobody does anything. The tag languishes at the top of the page. Net result: Ongoing harm from improper tagging.

::::# Editor B, not seeing any explanation and not understanding the concern, removes it. Net result: Harm from improper tagging; benefit from removing.

::::Did I miss any? It seems like your concern is items 4–5–6 in the first set (and 5–6–7 in the second, less likely set). I'm not seeing substantial harms in any of them, though in the first set, there is a chance that removal will prevent a future fix. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::One area that might be missing from this is that the POV tags are very frequently used as all-purpose "this article is bad" tags when it would have been more appropriate to use a tag like {{Promotional}}, {{COI}}, {{Too few opinions}}, {{Unreliable sources}}, etc that actually identify the specific issue that needs to be addressed. In such a case, it's best if Editor B eventually comes along and replaces the POV tag with a more specific tag. -- LWG ^talk 19:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{replyto|WhatamIdoing}} for scenario 1, wouldn't maintaining those tags be useful for WP:GAR and WP:FAR? The harm would be articles that are not neutral would be more likely to maintain GA or FA, or more likely to persist having issues. Neutrality is a core principle in Wikipedia. Bogazicili (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Which #1 is scenario 1? The one in which the POV problem got solved, in which case the tag is now inaccurate and therefore shouldn't be retained, or the one in which the POV problem never existed in the first place, in which case the tag has always been inaccurate and therefore shouldn't be retained? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I meant the top one, {{tq|If the article is biased ...}} Bogazicili (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} {{u|LWG}}, given you frequently work on this issues, what do you think of Template:POV#When_to_remove? Bogazicili (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:In your user page, you have "If talk page contains unresolved POV discussions, but the discussions have not been updated for several years, remove the tag" This is much more sensible than what is currently in there with "if the discussion has become dormant" Bogazicili (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::I see my "several years" guideline as a quick-and-dirty approximation of "the discussion has become dormant". The period of time that needs to pass to consider a discussion "dormant" varies from article to article and in low traffic topic areas it wouldn't surprise me if it took a long time for someone to notice and reply to a talk page message. But if no one has touched the issue for years then the tag is failing in its purpose of "attracting editors with different viewpoints". Template:POV#When_to_remove doesn't say you must remove the template if the discussion has stagnated - it says you may do so. That is, you don't need to notify/seek approval from the original tagger (impractical) or prove an article is totally POV-free (impossible!) before removing a POV tag. If there is no active discussion taking place, you are free to act on your own judgement. -- LWG ^talk 21:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Also, of course, if someone removes a tag and someone else objects to that decision and replaces it, then the discussion is no longer dormant and you can proceed with the normal collaborative consensus-building process. -- LWG ^talk 21:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I agree.

::::Since the word may seems to get overlooked (a problem I've seen in several sets of instructions during the last couple of years), I have replaced may with "allowed (but not required) to". If that causes problems (e.g., "You're not required to do this; therefore, you are not allowed to!"), then we can revert it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes but you have to keep watching the page in your watchlist. Maybe I'm a bit lazy lol. Bogazicili (talk) Bogazicili (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just watchlist the POV maintenance categories and you'll see all the adds/removes in your feed. -- LWG ^talk 20:32, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::There's scripts like User:Ais523/watchlistnotifier and my fork of it, User:Aaron Liu/Watchlyst Greybar Unsin, that bring the latest watchlist entry to the top of the screen. I'm still working on supporting category changes, though it should work for per-page changes. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{replyto|Aaron Liu}} do you have something that ignores bot edits? I don't want to check a page if only bots have edited it since last checking. Bogazicili (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Or, at least, invite some WikiProjects to look at these articles. The list is at User:WhatamIdoing/Old POV tags. Most groups only have 1–3 articles. Everyone's welcome to invite groups to help and to update the list (so we don't duplicate each other's work). Consider this an unoffocial backlog/invitation drive. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• {{ping|Sohvyan|Oramfe}} hi, Obatala is included here if you're interested? I would do it myself but am not that knowledgeable on Yoruba religion, I've listed a few sources on the talk page though Kowal2701 (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm thinking of a new protection level, which would be used when semi-protection would be too relaxed, but EC protection would be too restrictive. The requirements would be 14 days and 100/200 edits (I can't decide) and I think we could call it mid-protection.

To build on this, I think autoconfirmed users should be able to semi-protect their own user page. As there is an edit filter, why don't we place the semi-protected shackle? Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 08:12, 24 June 2025 (UTC) (amended 10:43, 24 June 2025 (UTC))

:User pages are de facto semiprotected via an edit filter. If you want to unprotect your userpage, use {{tlx|unlocked userpage}}. I don't think finer protection levels would be particularly helpful; semi keeps out the low-effort vandals and EC is a real threshold for participation. I don't think there are many bad-faith users that have a "is it worth it?" threshold somewhere inbetween. —Kusma (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:Where would this protection level be useful? Semi-protection works well against random vandalism, extended confirmed protection works well on controversial topics and pending changes works well for low-volume articles that get constructive edits in addition to disruptive ones. There's no point adding more protection levels just for the sake of adding more protection levels - it just adds more complexity and bureaucracy for no benefit.

:I would oppose allowing people to protect their own userpage because a) it would be completely pointless - as you note we already have an edit filter to stop those edits and b) it would result in privilege escalation - anyone could semi-protect random pages by moving them to their userspace, protecting them, then moving them back. 86.23.87.130 (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Then prohibit moved pages from the SP rights. Starfall2015 ^{let's talk} _profile 11:56, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If a proposal is unnecessary and complicated, it is best to drop it, not to make it more complicated. —Kusma (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That's a tiny, tiny concern out of all the concerns mentioned here. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:The padlock is something not coupled with the software at all and can (though not necessarily should) be added or removed from any page, protected or not. See {{tl|protection templates}}. Like others here I fail to see a usecase. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Starfall2015, which article made you think of this idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think this would make sense. Generally ECP is only used under two circumstances: First, in certain WP:CTOPs subject to ArbCom (or community?) sanctions. And second, when semi-protection has proven ineffective. Both of these cases share a common thread in that they tend to be situations where articles or topics are a locus of extensive outside pressure aimed at Wikipedia. In those situations, even ECP has sometimes seemed too easy to game; I don't see a value to a lesser version. And in situations where an article is just facing a wave of passing or incidental disruption due to being in the news or the like, or where it is generally controversial and high-profile in a way that leads to constant low-grade disruption the long term but isn't facing that sustained deliberate focus, semi-protection is sufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there anything we can do to make level 2 and 3 3 and 4 section headings more different? For example see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bantu_expansion&oldid=1297218445 Bantu expansion], "c. 5000 BCE to c. 500 CE " is level 2 3, the remaining ones level 3 4, they look identical to me Kowal2701 (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:I was confused at first because level 2 and level 3 headings are actually quite distinct, but it turns out you actually mean level 3 and level 4 section headings (see Help:Section#Creation and numbering of sections). I believe you can change the display of these for yourself by customising you user css (but I don't know how to do it myself, so can't give you instructions). If you are proposing changing it for everyone, it would help if you could describe what you'd like to change it to. Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry got confused because we never have level 1. Longshot but maybe have level 4 unbolded and 5 italic? Kowal2701 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:::AFAICT Level 4 unbolded looks exactly like ordinary text. That's probably not what you want for a section heading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I suppose we could add an underline to the level 3 header, but just the length of the heading not the full page width? Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Underlining of text has traditionally been the method to provide emphasis in cases where italic was not available: on typewriters. As that limitation isn't a concern for Wikipedia, personally I would prefer to follow best typographical practice and not use underlining. isaacl (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{smalldiv|1=Level 1 is the article title. It's technically possible to have one in the page body but it should be semantically as if a different page. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)}}

:I agree the lack of difference between 3 and 4 is confusing. Cremastra (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

:also, level 5 and 6 looks the same. (on mobile phones) drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ 06:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

In case seeing them helps anyone:

{{fake heading|Level 1 page title|level=1}}

{{fake heading|Level 2 section}}

{{fake heading|Level 3 sub-section|level=3}}

{{fake heading|Level 4 sub-sub-section|level=4}}

{{fake heading|Level 5 sub-sub-sub-section|level=5}}

{{fake heading|Level 6 sub-sub-sub-sub-section|level=6}}

We actually do use =Level 1s= on some discussion pages, but >99% of the time, you'll only find it used for the page title (and never for anything except the page title in the mainspace). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:What’s strange is that on mobile they’re quite obviously different (probably because my text size is giant) Kowal2701 (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think people are more concerned with the difference between 4 and 5. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::4 is bolded and 5 isnt. drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ 06:01, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

::::Not on desktop. (courtesy link to my sandbox which you can check out on a computer) Aaron Liu (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that the best approach for most articles will be to restructure them to use no more than two levels of hierarchy (below the page title, so level 2 and 3 headings). My instinct is that keeping track of where you are in the reading hierarchy becomes noticeably more difficult when a third level of hieararchy (that is, a level 4 heading) is introduced. I think a set of level 4 headings can be workable when the accompanying sections are short and the headings iterate through a small number of parallel items. But in general, less nesting is easier to process. isaacl (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:+1 Donald Albury 19:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I just got through a spate of mindless clicking cleaning up after some persistent IP-hopping vandal. What would people think about in addition to the "revert" link in article histories, a "revert and protect" link that did all both actions in a single click? The vast majority of the time, semi-protection for a week with a "Vandalism" log comment would be fine, and it would save a lot of clicking. RoySmith (talk) 12:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:That seems like something more suited to a user script than a general interface change. As someone who doesn't do a lot of vandalism reversion it would be a waste of screen space for me 364 days a year and chances are I'd misclick on it at least once and reverting an accidental protection is a lot more work than reverting an accidental rollback. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's certainly worth trying it out as a user script, and if it becomes popular, we have an even stronger case for building it into the default UI. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I would think that tools like RedWarn/Ultraviolet or Twinkle would have something like that Aaron Liu (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:This seems like a reasonable feature request for TW for admins. Izno (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requested articles is pretty inactive these days. Should we do something about it, and if so, what? See also this relevant discussion. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

:Could launch an RFC at WP:VPPR with question "What should we do with WP:RA?" and options A do nothing, B mark historical and revert new entries, C delete everything. Or could WP:MFD the entire thing.

:I have concerns about WP:RA being a black hole that tricks newbies and attracts spam. To help combat this, in 2021 I changed Wikipedia:Requested articles/Header to recommend making a draft (via the article wizard) instead of requesting an article at WP:RA. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

::WikiProjects have their own lists which I suspect are more active, although this is highly variable and full of black holes as well. CMD (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::On 'spam', see a tangential discussion on seeking page protection for one of the RA subpages. The discussion did not lead to implementing protection.

::IMO the project is a useful addition to WP when/if used 'properly', and WikiProject-specific request pages just decentralize. However its probably fair to say the pages are only used by a few hundred users per year, as compared to the millions elsewhere; so may unfortunately be more trouble than its worth to upkeep. Tule-hog (talk) 03:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. Wouldn't wikiproject-specific pages just have the exact same problems, with the additional issue of making discovery more challenging? -- Avocado (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::::(Someone correct me) but my guess is though that WikiProject-specific lists are made by participants, rather than people looking to advertise, so there's more evidence of notablity. GoldRomean (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:A look at the page history of requested bios [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_profession&action=history&offset=&limit=500], for example, shows occasional additions, and mostly a lot of cleanup efforts. Does any smarter or more experienced editor than me know how to get some stats or info for when most of the requests were made? A lot of them seem very old. GoldRomean (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::I can try to whip up something with my basic Python knowledge. No guarantees though. Ca ^{talk to me!} 14:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:My fairly recent experience looking through RA for something to write about was one of being utterly overwhelmed by the number of options even in any one subpage (and under any given heading on some of the most populous subpages), and not having a clue how to begin narrowing the field.

:I wouldn't totally object to shutting it down entirely, but on the flip side, maybe something could be done to make it more useful. For instance, applying a template to every (or every new) entry with links to search various places for reliable sources about the topic. -- Avocado (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::The first step to triaging any entry at WP:RA is to determine notability. This means doing google searches and other investigations to determine if there's enough sourcing for the article to pass WP:GNG, or just knowing enough of our WP:SNGs to be able to spot if it passes an SNG. Notability is hard and takes a lot of experience to judge accurately.

::A thought occurs to me. I wonder how many of the entries at WP:RA aren't even notable. There's probably a lot of red herrings and rabbit holes there. For example, how many of the companies at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies/A-E pass WP:NCORP? I have my suspicions that it's not very many. The one time I tried to write an article about a company on one of these lists, it got sent to AFD and deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lidya (company). I was quite confused as a new user, but on the flip side, it did motivate me to go to WP:NPPSCHOOL and figure out how notability works. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree that an initial screening is key to make the list of requested articles into one that is high-yield, and thus useful for interested editors to go through. (Linking it up to corresponding active wikiprojects would be another important aspect, but of course there aren't many of those.) But this needs willing people to do it regularly, and I'm not sure there's a sustainable way to ensure it gets done. There's already a lot of work to patrol the actual articles and edits that are made. isaacl (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe we could require each new entry at WP:RA to have either WP:THREE sources or evidence of meeting a SNG, and have a "triage" zone where they are placed until a volunteer checks the sources? That might mean more work, but would likely reduce the load at RA by a lot, and make it easier to write the articles themselves in the future. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:RA is a ghost town. I don't think there's anyone available to enforce a rule like this on its [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%3A%22Requested+articles%2F%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%22fields%22%3A%7B%22intitle%22%3A%22Requested+articles%2F%22%7D%7D&ns4=1 333 subpages]. We do try to do some quality control on the businesses and companies subpages via pending changes protection, but that's just 5 subpages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, the only reasonable way to go at it would be "mark everything as in triage" (or, more drastically, "throw everything away") and start filtering new entries with sources. Although that is still a lot of effort for a project that has brought comparatively little benefits. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't think it's worth it. We'd just end up with three URLs for a spammy suggestion (because the WP:UPE followed the directions) and removing a solidly notable suggestion because the innocent newbie didn't follow the directions.

::::::At least with Wikipedia:Requested articles/Medicine (I'm not familiar with very many of the lists), the suggestions are sometimes good candidates for redirects or list entries. Relatively few are obviously bad suggestions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm guessing it's probably because the majority of company/bios are people looking for self-promo whilst a larger amount of, say, medicine requests, are SME's thinking "hey this topic is pretty important in my field why isn't there an article on it". GoldRomean (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Or people wanting information because someone they know is sick. I don't exactly miss the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool (2010–2014), but we got comments that suggest people turn to Wikipedia to get quick answers.

::::::::The basic scenario is: someone texts you "We're at the hospital. They think the baby has Scaryitis". You want to know whether your response should be "What a relief" or "I'm so sorry", and you don't want to slog through a lot of details. So when we don't have anything, or when it doesn't provide information about the prognosis, people aren't getting what they want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Agree, I guess in general just when people see we're missing content on a topic (which probably should be the way RA is intended to be used). GoldRomean (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

:Me and @Bearian (mostly him) have tried to maintain the crime/law one and revert/remove non notable entries, though it still needs more. As far as I am aware every other one is a ghost town. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

::I mean having a group of people who "maintain" the pages is nice, extending that to more pages to keep them in a decent state wouldn't be a bad idea, but to retrospectively remove all non notable entries is a mammoth task that I don't really think is possible. If we were to PCP all the pages and then make sure that these requests went through a proper review beforehand I do think that's a way to enforce some rules if we were to make them. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 06:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)