Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Refideas notification upon editing an article

{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2059438053}}

For topics which may not yet meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for articles, but for which relevant information is present across multiple articles (such that an editor may have difficulty deciding which page to redirect to), there should be a type of mainspace page dedicated to listing articles in which readers can find information on a given topic. A page of that type would be distinct from a disambiguation page in that, while disambig pages list different topics that share the same name, a navigation page (or navpage) would include a list of articles or sections that all contain information on the exact same topic. In situations where a non-notable topic is covered in more than one article, and readers wish to find information on that particular topic, and that topic can't be confused with anything else (making disambiguation unnecessary), and there turns out to be two or more equally sensible redirect targets for their search terms, then a navpage may be helpful.

{{collapse top|Rough example #1|expand=yes}}

Wikipedia does not have an article on the Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting, but you can read about this topic in the following articles:

• Kanye West presidential campaigns § Trump–West–Fuentes meeting
• Nick Fuentes § Dinner with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago
• Racial views of Donald Trump § Meeting with Nick Fuentes and Kanye West
• Views of Kanye West § Donald Trump–Nick Fuentes meeting

You can also:

• {{plain link|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=Nick_Fuentes,_Donald_Trump,_and_Kanye_West_meeting&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 Search Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting in Wikipedia}} to check for alternative titles or spellings.
• Start the Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting article, using the Article Wizard if you wish, or add a request for it.
• Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

{{dmbox|nocat=yes|text=

This navigation page lists articles containing information on Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting.

If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended page.}}

{{collapse bottom}}

{{collapse top|Rough example #2|expand=yes}}

Wikipedia does not have an article on Anti-Bangladesh disinformation in India, but you can read about this topic in the following articles:

• 2024 Bangladesh anti-Hindu violence § Disinformation
• Fake news in India § Student–People's uprising in Bangladesh
• Non-cooperation movement (2024) § Disinformation by Indian media

You can also:

• {{plain link|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?fulltext=1&search=Anti-Bangladesh_disinformation_in_India&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1 Search Anti-Bangladesh disinformation in India in Wikipedia}} to check for alternative titles or spellings.
• Start the Anti-Bangladesh disinformation in India article, using the Article Wizard if you wish, or add a request for it.
• Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

{{dmbox|nocat=yes|text=

This navigation page lists articles containing information on Anti-Bangladesh disinformation in India.

If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended page.}}

{{collapse bottom}}

Besides reducing the prevalence of red links, navpages can also be targets for other pages (e.g. Trump dinner) to redirect to without being considered double redirects. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is a cool idea! Toadspike [Talk] 11:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::I also agree! I'm thinking some disambiguation pages tagged with {{tl|R with possibilities}} could make good navigation pages, alongside the WP:XY cases mentioned above. At the same time, we should be careful to not have any "X or Y" be a navigation page pointing to X and Y – it could be useful to limit ourselves to pages discussing the aspects together. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Good idea – people seeing the nav page and how it is split across more than one article could also help drive creation of broad-topic articles. Cremastra (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:Also noting that the small text {{tq|If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended page.}} might not necessarily be needed, as it can make sense to link to navigation pages so readers can have an overview of the coverage, and since that page might be the target of a future broad-topic article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:This seems a useful idea. As a similar example I'd like to offer Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area, which I created as an odd disambiguation page because it was a term people might search, but with little to say that wouldn't CFORK with content that would easily fit within both or either or the existing articles. CMD (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is great. I often edit articles related to PLAN ships, and since many ships currently lack articles, we cannot use disambiguation pages for those ships(e.g. Chinese ship Huaibei, which has two different frigates with the same name). This could really help out a lot. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

:This seems like a useful idea. It would benefit readers and probably save time at RFD and AFD. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 15:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Throwing my support behind this as well. It would be very useful in cases where AFD discussions find consensus to merge the contents of an article into multiple other articles. -insert valid name here- (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've just come across Ethiopia in World War II, which is effectively already doing this under the guise of a WP:SIA. CMD (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::Should I WP:BOLDly create {{tl|navigation page}} and put it there? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This would be very bold, but no opposition has been raised? If you do, please put it on Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area too. CMD (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Done for both! About the technical aspect of things, I added the "you can also search..." in the template (as it could be practical) but it might look less than aesthetic below a "See also" section. I made it into an optional opt-in parameter, is that fine? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:34, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Also did it for Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting, with a hidden comment to not convert it into an article per AfD consensus. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:07, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::If this sort of page type is to be used for topics without independent notability (including deleted through an AfD), perhaps it should just drop that part and simply say "You can read about the Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting in the following articles"? Those with the potential to be expanded could be integrated into the hidden Template:R with possibilities system or something similar. CMD (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I already added a parameter for that part (on the Fuentes-Trump-West meeting, the link inviting to create the article is not present). But yeah, removing it entirely as an optional parameter could also make sense. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Also thinking about the Poor people's rights search below, removal seems best. Alternatively, flipping it so that it is the prompt to create a page that is the optional addition might provide the desired goal while erring on the side of not encouraging creating poorly scoped articles. CMD (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I also decided to take the liberty of creating a new category and another page (albeit an essay in development) to go along with the new page type. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Great job! Just wondering, it makes sense for topics that might be notable but haven't yet been written about (such as Ethiopia in World War II) to be navigation pages, should that be included in the graph? (Also, wondering if this whole conversation should maybe be moved to Wikipedia talk:Navigation pages instead of being pinned here) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Also, once that is all done, we should probably update {{tl|Dmbox}} so navpages are a parameter, to avoid them being automatically detected as disambiguations (although that's not really that big of a deal). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I think we should decide early on, should this be allowed to have some context or info like WP:SIA? Maybe some content, which not enough for notability (the reason why it's not an article)? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:04, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I think the amount of info allowed for SIAs should be the minimum along with a brief outline of the topic. Thryduulf (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@MrPersonHumanGuy Could you possibly implement this in the draft you are writing? :) ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:05, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::I'm wondering if Poor people's rights, currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 13#Poor people's rights, might be a candidate for this sort of page? Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:I was initially keen on this idea, but after thinking a bit more and reading this discussion, I have to say I'm opposed to it. Either write a stub or stick to the search function. Cremastra _talk 19:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not convinced this is a good idea. Of the existing navpages, I boldly redirected Ethiopia in World War II; Armand Biniakounou, Glove and Boots, Amari McCoy, Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area, and Skillsville all just feel like poor man's duplicates of search that will inevitable go out of date as the will to maintain them won't exist; Goldie (TV series) only isn't that because the term is ambiguous, and the only exception is Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:37, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:I also have some concerns about navigation pages. They do indeed seem like they could require a lot of maintenance (especially if they are linking to sections. renaming a heading would break the links). It also seems like this could encourage fragmentation. Perhaps the better approach would be to pick one spot for something like Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting (pick a section in one of the articles), and redirect to that. Perhaps {{t|Navigation page}} might need to go to TFD to have a wider discussion to determine if it has consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am also unconvinced this is a good direction of travel. The article on the meeting of these three men was deleted; if we think this is a worthy article title, shouldn't we just have the article? There is a longstanding tradition at WP:RFD to delete ambiguous redirects and to rely on our search function instead, see WP:XY. Do we really want to have "navigation pages" for every single sports rivalry (mentioned in articles about both teams), relations between countries that do not suffice for a separate article? Amari McCoy is just bad: it is a bluelink that should be a redlink to show we do not have an article, and it is impeding the search function. If an article could potentially be created, a "navigation page" will impede actual article creation and (in the future) deny the creation credit (and the relevant notifications) to the actual article creator. —Kusma (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Amari McCoy just looks silly. Why are there references all over a navigation page? That looks like a stub article to me. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Additionally the "navigation page" hides the existence of Draft:Amari McCoy, which would be visible when visiting the red link. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I would be okay with this one being deleted, as it doesn't actually contribute to navigation in any useful way (none of the target articles do more than list her as one of many actors). However, I mildly disagree with your point about article credit, as it isn't meaningfully different from the current situation with redirects. More generally, I do believe that navigation pages could be useful in a specific case (where there is a substantial amount of information about the same topic on several pages), but that they shouldn't abused to link to every single page that namechecks a subject. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:14, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't think redirects should be given creation credit either. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I think we agree on the point that creating a redirect/navpage shouldn't give you creation credit. But that alone doesn't mean the page type shouldn't be kept, otherwise one could argue that redirects should be deleted for the same reason. Since navpages are functionally intended as multi-redirects, I believe the analogy especially makes sense. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I also agree. Even though I created The Book of Bill as a redirect, it was Googabbagabba who ultimately filled it with meaningful article content and thus the one who should've been notified when the article was linked with a Wikidata entry. Nonetheless, I don't think "another editor wants to create an article under this title" would be considered valid rationale for deleting a redirect or navpage. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'd also seen Goldie (TV series) and think it looks like an unholy amalgam of a stub article and a navigation page: it should be one thing or the other, not both. I suppose my principal concern is that permitting adequately-sourced and verifiable content about an otherwise non-notable subject in a legitimate navpage is effectively quite a backdoor to a Wikipedia article about a non-notable subject. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::The Goldie page is ridiculous; it should just be a stub. I think navpages have a very specific application: a topic that for whatever policy-based reason does not belong in mainspace as a standalone page but is discussed in multiple pages. I would oppose them having any references or additional formatting at all. It should basically a multiple-choice redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::For the avoidance of confusion, I've turned the page into a stub because it is. Old revision that everybody's talking about is here: Special:Diff/1286214323. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 21:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yep, agree with you. I would even clarify that the subject should be discussed relatively in-depth in multiple places, so we don't get lists of articles that namedrop a subject like Amari McCoy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:16, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Housekeeping note: I've notified WP:WikiProject Disambiguation about this discussion. Mathglot (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
• I didn't really expect this to go anywhere so I'll now elaborate on "This is a cool idea!". I think these pages can fill a narrow but present gap in our page ecosystem. Essentially, topics where there is more than one possible redirect target about the same subject, which distinguishes them from DABs, which have more than one possible redirect target about different subjects.

: Also, since it's relevant to this discussion, I closed an AfD as "Navify" earlier today – feedback from others on the close and the resulting nav page (Armand Biniakounou) would be appreciated. I thought nav pages had been fully approved by the community, but I was clearly mistaken – if I had known that this is still being discussed, I may have closed this AfD differently or not at all. Toadspike [Talk] 00:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::I also misjudged consensus the same way, and that caused me to get carried away until I checked this page again and learned that not everyone was on board with the whole navpage idea, at which point I decided to pull the brakes and stop creating any more navpages. As for Amari McCoy, the fact that two stubs were being suggested for navification was what gave me enough guts to create that navpage in the first place. My reasoning was that "If these athletes can get navpages even though other articles only mention them as entries in lists, then that logic can be applied to other topics as well." In hindsight, that may not have been such a good idea after all. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I think your approach was reasonable. Sometimes you need to ramp up a bit to get wider community feedback. I didn't make a decision about this idea until I saw some actual articles with the template. Anyway thank you for stopping now that this is becoming a bit more controversial. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:13, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• I think the gun was kind of jumped with this, though the topic was posted one month ago. Some more voices weighing in on this would likely be helpful. --Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{u|Chaotic Enby}} mentioned something above about namedropping a subject, which seems to be similar to something I've been mulling over, and trying to decide how to formulate my concern. Let me start by turning your attention to the issue of WP:NOTTRIVIA just for a moment. I know there are lots of editors who love to dig up every place their fave character was ever mentioned, and there are folks on all sides of the question of sections like "FOO in popular culture". I remember how discouraged I was when I found that the relatively short article on a medieval French poet was about 50% allusions to modern popular culture items which in my view contributed nothing to an understanding of the poet. When you have a good search engine, it becomes trivial to dig up obscure allusions of this type, and so people do.

: Transfer that thought now to the nav page concept. At first blush, it kind of seems like a good idea, but how might it morph in the future, and are we maybe opening Pandora's box? Suppose the good guys all do it the right way for a while, and then enthusiastic new editors or SPAs or Refspammers or social media types get wind, and all of a sudden it explodes in popularity and these pages become heavy with idiosyncratic additions based on somebody's fave niche reference? Will we end up needing new guidelines to specify what is or isn't a proper entry? Are we setting ourselves up for a possible giant future maintenance burden for regular editors? Mathglot (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::That is indeed a very good point, and this is why we should, in my opinion, have these guidelines ready before having navpages deployed on a large scale. While every new article or page can be seen as a "maintenance burden", navpages should fill a very small niche: subjects where in-depth content can be found on several pages, but which do not fit the notability guideline by themselves. This should be a much stronger criterion than simple mentions, and likely only apply to borderline cases where notability isn't very far away. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Do you have a single example of a subject where we should really have such a navigation page? Everything we have above is "mentions" (we certainly shouldn't allow those, or we will soon have thousands of genealogy stubs on non-notable minor nobility disguised as "navigation"), with the longest discussions being those of the "meeting" above, which are a short paragraph each and fairly repetitive with little critical commentary. If that is the best use case for the concept, I think the negatives strongly outweigh the positives for this idea. —Kusma (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It was a better situation for Ethiopia in World War II, which probably could be an article, but in the meantime the various links would have been very helpful to readers. Now it is a redirect to an article subsection covering a time period mostly before WWII that also does not cover most of WWII. CMD (talk) 12:49, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The classic solution "just write a stub" still looks superior to having a "navigational" pseudo-article to me in that case. —Kusma (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The stub is much less helpful than some very simply laid out links to multiple not-stubby articles. CMD (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree that the navigation page at Ethiopia in World War II was much more helpful than the current redirect, and I'm not sure what benefit a stub would bring given that we have existing coverage of the topic in multiple places already. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I also agree this navpage was better than a redirect. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:13, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Maybe "just write a stub" situations should be encouraged to have See also links pointing to potentially useful targets. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 05:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@Kusma Do you think the navpage (Armand Biniakounou) resulting from the AfD I linked is a good use? The two articles it links to don't have in-depth content, but there were two equally-good redirect targets and a consensus to redirect. Toadspike [Talk] 16:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think that is terrible. The bluelink promises we have nontrivial information, but there is only a trivial mention in a table. This is what fulltext search is made for. —Kusma (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Very true. But – and I'm trying to understand the entirety of your argument, not be contrarian – the alternative is a redirect to one of the two bluelinks. This would equally promise nontrivial information, except it only provides half of the information we have.

::::::In this case there was consensus to preserve the edit history; the need for a placeholder limits our options. Toadspike [Talk] 19:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Speaking not from a Wikipedian's perspective but a reader's perspective, I would be annoyed by that article. The formatting's a bit weird, and it's trying to tell me that it's not an article, but I can see very clearly with my own two eyes that it's just a short article that tells me this man has been in the Olympics, twice. Despite the promise in the template, clicking on those links does not give me any additional information about him. Also, there's a bunch of unsourced biographical details in the categories? My reader self doesn't understand why those aren't in the article. Additionally, I can only see those facts in desktop view, so if I send the article to my friend to tell them that Wikipedia says this sprinter was born in 1961, they're going to be very confused. {{pb}} On a related note, I think understand ATDs in an abstract way, but it's very annoying when you're a reader, you're trying to look something up, you know Wikipedia used to have an article about the subject, but now you find yourself on a nearly unrelated page that doesn't seem to mention the topic at all? Or, if it does, only very briefly as one entry in a table? It's very frustrating and I don't like it. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 20:06, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I understand all your points. The issue is that this case ties into the broader debate over sports stubs and new sigcov requirement of WP:SPORTCRIT – we have a bunch of verifiable information about this guy (and thousands of athletes like him) but they are not notable. What we should do with them instead is a huge can of worms. If you and Kusma believe articles like this should be deleted instead of redirected or navified, we're gonna need an RfC.

::::::::As for the categories, I agree that they are questionable way to present unsourced information. Those were added by @MrPersonHumanGuy after I navified the article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armand_Biniakounou&diff=1286253283&oldid=1286227492]. Toadspike [Talk] 13:43, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::To avoid redirection in general? Yes, that's a something even I'm not masochistic enough to deal with (though I will take any opportunity to remind people that we have a fairly functionable search bar for mentions and draftspace/userspace to preserve the history of poorly-sourced but potentially notable articles). To avoid navigation? This produced, again, an unsourced perma stub about a living person. Without sources, we actually don't even know if this is the same person. Sure, the external sources listed in the AfD (that I'm not allowed to put in the stub, aren't present in either of the articles?) seem to confirm that, and his name is unique enough, but we already have enough of an issue with editors accidentally mixing up people just because they have the same name. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with Chaotic Enby, would would add a second type of use: Where two or more notable concepts are covered in separate Wikipedia articles but common searched for together - see WP:XY and Wikidata's "Bonnie and Clyde problem". Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area looks like an example of this type of use in action. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, that's a good example. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:I like the idea, but we definitely need boundaries on what qualifies for a navpage. The current categories seem to be something along the lines of:

:# Subjects which would be a {{tlx|R from subtopic}} as a redirect that have multiple potential targets (Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting)

:# Subjects which would be a {{tlx|R to subtopic}} as a redirect that have multiple potential targets (Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area)

:# Subjects which are more akin to an index of possible articles with content relating to the subject (the old version of Ethiopia in World War II, the example in the original comment about Anti-Bangladesh disinformation in India)

:# Subjects which are briefly mentioned on a couple pages with very little actual content (Armand Biniakounou, Amari McCoy, Glove and Boots)

:It seems like there's more pushback to the fourth category than the first three. The third might be a bit too broad of a category that could be split up; I like the Ethiopia page as a navpage a lot more than the anti-Bangladesh disinformation page. The fourth category seems like a bad use of navpages, just because it leads readers to places that have little or no more information about the subject than the navpage itself. The first two seem to have the most potential. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::I generally agree with that classification, although I'm not sure "subtopic" is quite the right word for 2 and the line between 2 and 3 seems blurry, with the only difference I can immediately see being 2 has a title that is a proper noun which gives it a firm scope, while 3 has a descriptive title and thus a more fuzzy scope. Is that a useful distinction to make? I'm not sure.

::One thought that has just occurred to me with 4 is that this would be used to create pages that are just a list of notable sports teams this player we don't have an article about played for (either because they aren't notable or because nobody has written one yet). I can see arguments both ways about whether such a page is encyclopaedic, but it isn't a navigation page in the same way that 1-3 are. So I think we should come up with a different name for that sort of page and discuss separately whether we want them or not. This does leave open how to determine an appropriate amount of content about a is enough to make it a navigation page, and my thinking is that we want a rule of thumb rather than a hard limit, perhaps "at least a few sentences, ideally a paragraph". Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I would agree that a few sentences or a paragraph in two separate articles is probably a good bar for navpages, though they probably should also be different sentences and not the same text copied between articles (might be hard to police, but the reader gets no new information on the target by visiting both pages).

:::I think category 3 is the fuzziest one. I can see the argument for including category 2 in it, but my sense is that category 3 is already broader than I'd like, and I see a distinction there. I would say Ethiopia in World War II (as a redirect) would be more of a {{tlx|R from subtopic}}, not a redirect to a subtopic, so it'd be more likely to merge with category 1; the Anti-Bangladesh disinformation in India example is something I wanted to call a broad-concept page, but the definition didn't quite fit, and it's not really a clear subtopic or supertopic of anything (maybe {{tlx|R from related topic}} if used as a redirect to any of those?). Meanwhile, the Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area is clearly a topic that contains both Turtle Islands National Park and Turtle Islands Wildlife Sanctuary; I'd call it a supertopic, but the redirect category is named R to subtopic, so that's what I went with.

:::I don't get the sense that consensus would like a separate type of page for category 4, though I personally could be swayed either way on it. I do agree that it shouldn't be what we're making navpages. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::I like this precision, but I worry this whole concept of nav pages is too complex for little benefit. We would have to teach a lot of folks these 4 rules (npps, autopatrollers, wiki project disambig, gnomes) and this has a cost. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Obviously I don't speak for those groups, but I'm in three of them and I think the idea is definitely worth considering even with the editor hours it'd take to teach editors. It's not that different from the idea of a disambiguation page or a set-index article, and it will be helpful to readers if done right. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:49, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't see how this function could really be useful: it breaks our search function by directing readers to these short, useless articles. And I think they should be considered articles: Amari McCoy and Armand Biniakounou both list the name, vocation, and biographical details about a real person, but would otherwise be rejected as citation-free BLP stubs in AfC or NPP. I fully agree with GreenLipstickLesbian's comments above about the latter article. I worry that this opens the door for a million new context-free stubs for every name we list in the encyclopedia, breaking the hypertext-based structure of linking people's names when they become notable. Search would be totally broken if typing a given name like "John" into the search box returned a list of hundreds of non-notable people in the suggestions just because they'd been listed somewhere and thus got a navigation page. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 12:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::I agree that John would make a terrible navigation page, and lists of places a person is trivially mentioned is not a navigation page per my comments above. Please don't be tempted to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::My point wasn't about a page called John, it was the issue of the search box's automatic suggestion function. Currently, typing a partial name into the box helpfully prompts the reader with a list of all the notable people with similar names for whom we have actual articles. If we made navigation pages for hundreds of non-notable people like above, this search function would be cluttered with short navigation stubs instead of the notable people we have useful articles on. This proposal is intended to assist navigation, but I think it would do the exact opposite. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 13:04, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::See above where we are dealing with this exact issue (Skarmory's type 4). We intend navigation pages to be used for instances of notable topics that are covered in at least some depth on multiple other articles. Lists of mentions of non-notable people are something qualitatively different - there are arguments for and against having such pages (and you have articulated some of them) but they are not navigation pages and their existence or otherwise should not be relevant to whether pages of Skamoary's types 1-3 should exist. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Regardless, these pages exist already and have the {{template link|navpage}} template, so it's worth discussing their place in this proposal and whether to explicitly forbid or allow them. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 13:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::My point isn't that they shouldn't be discussed, but that objections to one type should be used as a reason to reject the whole concept, especially when discussion about them being separate is already happening. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::These are reasonable concerns; when I saw the "navify" option come up at AfD I thought it was already a settled template that was intended to apply to non-notable topics that are mentioned on more than one page and so can't be redirected. If the discussion is instead leaning toward these being restricted to the kinds of intersections of notable topics described by Skarmory, then we probably should make that clearer to AfD. I agree that these navpages showing up in prompts the same way real articles do is not ideal. JoelleJay (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:This will massively overcomplicate everything for very little benefit except for straightening out a few odd ends that almost nobody who is not extremely into wikipedia-as-wikipedia cares about, for the price of possibly hundreds of thousands of useless or actively deleterious articles. We can barely get people to understand what a set index article is. #4 is especially problematic, #1 is also very bad, #2 & #3 probably harmless but extremely close to being SIAs so we don't need to invent a whole new thing for it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::Why is #1 bad? It leads our readers to content that doesn't have a full article but which does have content in multiple places, as opposed to having to select one target to redirect to. I would also disagree that #2 and #3 are any closer to being WP:SIAs than #1; these categories all fall into the same bucket of pointing you to pages that have content on the subject when we don't have an individual article for the subject, and they're not separate lists about subjects of a certain type with similar names (which is what a set index article is). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Well, and I'm probably going to say this much less eloquently that anybody else, but in this particular example, the content doesn't have a full article because Wikipedia editors at the time decided the sources did not demonstrate enough of a widespread, lasting impact to merit standalone coverage. In American politics - a topic area which is not suffering for lack of sources. If we can't demonstrate that this event had a lasting impact on anything, there's an a WP:NOTNEWS/WP:UNDUE/WP:10YEARTEST style argument that we probably shouldn't have anything more then a passing mention of the the subject in any article. (Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion, after all.) If the sourcing has changed, and now supports the idea that this event had a lasting impact on one particular subject, then we should create a section in the article about that in the subject's and redirect this page there, and maybe point to that section in the other, more tangentially-related articles. Similarly, if the sourcing has developed enough to show that this event had a lasting/significant impact on multiple subjects, then we should have a standalone article, not send the readers to like five different articles because the sourcing in 2022 wasn't good enough. {{pb}} I also agree with Parakanyaa that 3 is essentially a close cousin of a SIA, not in the sense that it's a list of similar things with similar names, but it's a list of similar things that readers will refer to with similar names. I disagree about 2, I think those are either permastubs we should accept as permastubs (and add sources), or stubs that should be expanded by merging the subtopics up into them. After all, if the Bombing of Hiroshima and the Bombing of Nagasaki can be covered in the same article, then there's no reason we can't cover two closely related parks together. (Or maybe redirect it to Transboundary protected area which currently contains the exact same links as the nav page, but with sources and more information.) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 02:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::That argument applies to Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting, but I'm not convinced it applies to every potential navpage which would fall under #1. Off the top of my head for another example, I think the redirect Mars Silvanus is another example of something that could be turned into a navpage, given both Mars (mythology)#Mars Silvanus and Silvanus (mythology) are reasonable targets (the former was picked as the redirect target at RFD); this is a subtopic of both which probably doesn't make sense as its own article, but it's sourced content that is relevant. There are probably more examples of similar RFDs where there's multiple potential targets and one just has to be picked.

::::I can see the argument on #3, but I think the general concept of a navpage is going to be a close cousin to an SIA in all four categories (admittedly, #3 does seem to be the closest category). I could see an argument for trying to meld navpages in with SIAs instead of making it its own separate page type, and I suppose there category #3 would be the easiest one to meld in. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 04:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Did everyone just forget hatnotes are a thing that exist? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Hatnotes are appropriate when either there is a single page that is clearly the most appropriate location for people to be redirected to and a short list of alternative pages people are plausibly but less likely looking for. Navigation pages are appropriate when there isn't an appropriate page because our coverage is split approximately equally across multiple different pages. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If there are too many links for a hatnote, there are navboxes. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I don't see how navboxes can replace hatnotes. They're completely different things. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::An example: topic A is covered in 9 articles. Per WP:SS, there's a broad-concept article about topic Z, of which A is a subtopic. The article on topic Z has a section on topic A. "A" redirects to Z#A. Z#A then has a sidebar containing links to the other 8 articles that have information on A.{{pb}}This is preferable to a "navigation page" because it immediately directs a reader to the highest-level overview of the topic. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::This covers cases like the old version of Ethiopia in World War II, but it doesn't cover something like Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting, which doesn't have a broad-concept article that it can target. It also wouldn't work well for category 4, but that seems to be getting no support as a navpage.

::::::I will admit that I didn't think of hatnotes, which can work for some of these cases, but they don't work for all of them; any topic where there isn't a clear target is going to be somewhat awkward (Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area), and the aforementioned case of a topic with lots of potential targets will be unviable. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The Fuentes-Trump-West meeting can also involve a redirect to an appropriate section and hatnotes as needed per GLL. None of our articles that cover the event are particularly good anyways. Directing readers to four meh sections isn't really helpful. Shouldn't the Turtle one just be a SIA? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The Turtle example could also redirect to the WP:PTOPIC if there is one with a hatnote to the other article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::There is no primary topic in either the Fuetes-Trump-West or Turtle Islands cases. This is the entire point. Thryduulf (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::For the type 4 case, I thought that {{tl|efn}} on the target pages linking the two would be a decent solution, with a redirect to one of them. I have done that with the Armand Biniakounou page and its target pages so that you can see what I mean. For reference, {{oldid2|1287108223|this is the navpage version}} of Armand Biniakounou. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Ooh, that's interesting. It does somewhat suffer from the same issue as a redirect with a hatnote (which article do you actually target?), but it feels cleaner than hatnotes. The one problem I might have with it is that it's a footnote while not really being article content, but I'm not sure whether that's a big deal. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Help:Explanatory notes says: {{tq|Explanatory or content notes are used to add explanations, comments or other additional information relating to the main content but would make the text too long or awkward to read}}, which is why I thought they're just the thing for the job. As to which article to target, in this case I really don't think it matters, as they're both linked together, but I arbitrarily chose the earliest competition. I imagine that a convention would soon arise, and if not the matter could be discussed at RfD. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I think that works if the subject is only connected with one other event, as is the case here, but I'm not as certain if it would be as clean if we had more solely participation based information from multiple other events. Let'srun (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|7}} I haven't researched the Turtle Islands. Maybe the park is primary over the preserve or vice versa. If a PTOPIC doesn't exist, the current page, which is a SIA, should remain as is. The Fuentes-Trump-West case can redirect to any of the four sections spread across articles, probably the one that is best developed at present (but, as I noted before, none of them are particularly good). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::So nobody gets confused - I've just redirected the Turtle Islands page to Transboundary protected area#Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area. I added about 250 words on the area there, very little of which was in the other two articles. I'm pretty sure there's enough sourcing to create a standalone page, I just didn't feel like doing that.GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 01:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::That is great. For the Turtle Islands navpage, as a lazier alternative to GreenLipstickLesbian's actual content creation, I had thought about a redirect to Turtle_Islands_Wildlife_Sanctuary#Background because the first paragraph of that discusses the subject briefly, with a couple of sources ({{tq|In 1996, the islands were declared as Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area by the governments of the Philippines and Malaysia as the only way to guarantee the continued existence of the green sea turtles and their nesting sites}}). There is no equivalent paragraph in the Turtle Islands National Park article. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Why do we not have an article Turtle Islands Heritage Protected Area like Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park? There is a paragraph of almost 300 words about TIHPA in Transboundary protected area#Asia. Donald Albury 15:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Would that article have the sourcing to meet the WP:GNG? Let'srun (talk) 13:13, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That slightly less than 300 word paragraph cites eight journals, a book, and a website, so yes, I would expect it to meet GNG. Donald Albury 15:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks like there's 7 pages in :Category:Navigation pages. That's good that it's not growing. I think creation of these has mostly paused. I think the next step is for someone to create an RFC on whether navigation pages should be allowed to exist. I guess at WP:VPPR, or at Wikipedia talk:Navigation pages but with notification to many other pages. Does that sound reasonable? Depending on the outcome of that RFC, we can then decide on whether to start peppering navigation pages everywhere, or to turn these 7 existing ones into something else. Whoever creates the RFC should be someone who is pro-navigation page, and should do some work on Wikipedia:Navigation pages to make sure it accurately documents the navigation pages proposal, and that page can be where we have our description of exactly how navigation pages will work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think we're ready for an RFC yet as discussion is still ongoing about which of the four types of page outlined above should be considered navigation pages, and if it isn't all of them how to distinguish the type(s) we want from the type(s) we don't. Some discussion on formatting will likely be needed too. Going to an RfC prematurely will just result in confusion and !votes based on different things and different understandings. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. If we were to hold an RfC now, we should at least have separate discussions on each of the four types of navpages laid out by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#c-Skarmory-20250422000300-Pppery-20250418163700 Skarmory], to be authorized or forbidden separately. Toadspike [Talk] 17:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Also agreeing – I would be in support of types 1 to 3, but opposed to type 4, which I believe is also the case for a lot of navpage proponents.{{pb}}There are also more technical issues we should consider before going for an all-or-nothing RfC. For instance, whether it would be technically possible to suppress or push down the appearance of navpages in search results (although having limited use cases like types 1 and 2 will likely make these much rarer than actual articles, and limit them to topics with actual content written about them somewhere). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Perhaps also a wording tweak to be more conservative. "There is currently no article" feels too encouraging, especially if the template might be used in the wrong locations (much as how Ethiopia in World War II is mischaracterized as an SIA). The closer these stay to disambiguation pages, which are firmly established, the clearer it will be that these are not articles. CMD (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Noting that these should probably go to RfD rather than AfD. They are effectively redirects to multiple articles – when the search engine is unhelpful as is often the case, a very useful niche. I'm sure they would be often created as a result of RfDs, so it makes sense for them to be discussed there too. J947 ‡ ^edits 21:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Disambiguation pages are often in a similar situation, but they still go to AfD. It's not ideal, but I'm not sure RfD would be a better venue. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::Disambiguation pages probably should go to RfD, particularly given how often redirects get converted to disambiguation pages. Navigation pages are even more suited because they are essentially redirects with multiple targets rather than articles. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Redirects + disambiguations + set index + navigation pages = navigatory pages for discussion? Needs a snappier name, but it seems like a sensible idea. I've always thought it odd that DAB pages go to AfD, since in terms of the sorts of arguments used and the policies considered they have far more affinity with RfD. Cremastra _talk 22:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Not sure about set index articles (they can be closer to lists, e.g. Dodge Charger), but DAB pages going to RFD sounds like a reasonable change; would PROD still be an available option for them in that case? I've historically used PROD to clean up some {{tlx|One other topic}} violations. I would also call it navigational pages for discussion before navigatory, but both could be confusing names if navpages are approved. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::If dab pages were invented today, they would probably be lumped with RfD. These pages share yet more similarities with redirects. The line between navigation pages and dab pages is a bit finer than between navigation pages and redirects, but it's still part of the spectrum that runs redirect–naviga–dab–SIA–list–(BCA)–article. J947 ‡ ^edits 03:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Nav pages continue to be both created and deleted at AfD, the former mostly due to the ongoing AfDs of Olympic athletes. For the folks here who expressed concern about some or all nav pages and the appropriate deletion venue for them, I highly encourage you to start working on an RfC soon, because in the meantime they will only multiply. Toadspike [Talk] 13:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Category:Navigation pages has been at 7 for a week, so doesn't appear to be growing. That's good. I don't think that we should be creating any more nav pages until there's been an RFC somewhere to approve them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::The category hasn't grown, but navify !votes at AfD have. I had to warn people [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdul_Aziz_Abdul_Kareem#c-Toadspike-20250427122400-Geschichte-20250426095300] that nav pages are currently not authorized. I saw another AfD today, which I won't link, heading towards consensus to navify. If the community actually wants this to stop, it's gonna have to do something; in the meantime, "navify" is an awfully convenient AfD outcome for athletes. Toadspike [Talk] 15:57, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I am not sure this is a good idea (although I was intrigued to start). While there are some subjects (mostly biographies) where there is not a singular ideal redirect target, I do feel that there would be many circumstances where a navigation page (or similar) would invite pages that are in violation of our community policies (no matter how tight we attempt to define what would be acceptable). --Enos733 (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:What policies are you thinking about? Why do you think navigation pages will invite these to be violated? Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Me too. Having read through the wide ranging discussion, I am not in favour of navpages as a concept. It seems to me that the current examples and Skarmory's four types could be adequately covered by:

:* Just writing a stub article, and having a well populated See also section. It may be possible to create that stub by coalescing existing article content and references from the See also list.

:* In cases where a stub article is not possible, redirecting to the best target using a {{tl|R with possibilities}}, and using existing navigation mechanisms - such as hatnotes, navigation templates, and explanatory footnotes - within the target to link up relevant content. If it is really impossible to establish the best target, editors could just arbitrarily pick one and it can always be discussed at RfD in the future.

:My principal concern is the potential for abuse, whereby less than well intentioned editors make navpages - which to all intents and purposes look like articles - about non-notable topics, exploiting passing mention of the topics in other articles. That would be exacerbated by permitting some descriptive text (with references) in a navpage - the navpage would really look rather like an article then. To prevent that, there would need to be a policy or guideline setting out how much content is allowed to be in a navpage (two sentences? one paragraph? two paragraphs?), how many references (up to three?), how much content there must be in linked articles (passing mention? more than a passing mention? how much more?) etc. That would all introduce additional complexity that new pages patrol, vandalism checkers, recent changes patrol etc. would have to deal with, and seems like a good deal of work for little gain, when existing navigation mechanisms could be used. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not sure why nav pages would to all intents and purposes look like articles. The initial idea proposed was to look like disambiguation pages. No paragraphs, no references. That is an easy guideline to put in place. CMD (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The initial idea, yes. But there was discussion later on about including some content, and that was reflected in some of the first navpages. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Well given there seems close to zero support for that, do you have thoughts on the main idea? CMD (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Basically a See also list without any other article trappings around it? As a reader, I'd prefer to be redirected to some actual content in a real article somewhere, with further navigation mechanisms to take me further if I chose to. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Basically a disambiguation page, as noted above. I suppose we're back to flipping coins for primary topics. CMD (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think that "navpages" with references and entire paragraphs of text defeat the purpose, and we should ideally have strict guidelines, of the type "only as much content as you'd find in a disambiguation page, and require in-depth coverage in the target articles". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::Case in point: Amari McCoy. This would never meet WP:NACTOR. Allowing these sorts of pages would open a massive loophole for letting non-notable people and businesses create Wikipedia pages for themselves. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::(I believe voorts is referring to this revision [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amari_McCoy&direction=prev&oldid=1287956786]). Toadspike [Talk] 08:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm referring to the present revision. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:08, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That appears to be an actual stub, not a navpage at all (and isn't even tagged with {{tl|navpage}} or anything similar). It was even explicitly transformed from a navpage-article hybrid into a stub in Special:Diff/1287956786. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It was marked as "reviewed" on April 16 as a navpage. The point voorts is making, I believe, is that it would never be in mainspace right now in the first place if it wasn't created as a navpage. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::How is that different to a page being created as a disambig, set index or redirect, being marked as reviewed in that state, and then converted to an article? That issue seems completely irrelevant to whether navpages as a concept should exist? Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Redirects converted to articles are put into the NPP (article) queue, but your point stands for DABs and SIAs. Regardless, I'm a bit confused about voorts criticizing a stub created by an autopatrolled editor as "would never meet NACTOR". Toadspike [Talk] 14:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Were we to have navpages, I think that it would be important that the same thing happened. That is, navpage -> article and article -> navpage conversions cause the converted item to re-enter the New Pages Feed. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I would agree — navpages are akin to redirects to multiple pages, and should undergo the same reviewing process as redirects to a single page if turned into an article. Not sure how difficult that would be to implement technically, but I would suspect it wouldn't be easy. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Not all autopatrolled users have a good grasp of notability (and I didn't check to see who wrote this one). This child actor is very clearly not notable and the conversion from "navigation page" to "stub" is the precise point I was making. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::If it helps, as the auto patrolled user, I don't see myself as having created that so much as...reverted to the version with sources while checking to see if it was eligible for BLP prod. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 14:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Thanks for clarifying. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I do think this strengthens your point, however, especially if you realize that the version I reverted to is the one that made it through NPR. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 15:11, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::If that is the case, that user's autopatrolled right should (maybe) be reviewed. The whole point of autopatrolled is that it should be given to users who can be trusted with creating notable articles. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::With GLL's explanation, the situation makes more sense and I don't blame her. I agree that the navpage vs article distinction is what made it ambiguous – and that it should likely be unreviewed, which I've just done. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::My point is that these navpages open the door to this sort of "article". If approved, I forsee a slow expansion of what's allowed on these pages to the point that they become pseudo-articles. If someone wants to know what voice roles this actor has had, there are plenty of other places on the internet to look. BLP and NBIO exist for a reason. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I understand your point, but I foresee the opposite: most pro-navpage editors here (myself included) oppose these kinds of "pseudo-articles" that don't actually serve a navigation purpose, and I don't think a list of voice acting roles without biographical context in the target articles is supported by anyone.{{pb}}Again, I believe that having very clear guidelines will help keep the helpful pages (the ones where you might have paragraphs of content on the same topic in several articles) and disallow any of this namechecking. It won't open the door to this sort of "article" if we lock the door from the start. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I completely agree with Chaotic Enby, these pseudo-articles are not navigation pages and nobody seems to be arguing in their favour otherwise. The existence of navigation pages should not encourage their creation if we explicitly state that they are not navigation pages and deal with any that are created by either converting them to something else (an actual navpage, disambig, SIA, redirect or article) or nominating them for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I agree nobody here is arguing for that, but I fear it will open the floodgates. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I understand that is what you think, but I'm struggling to understand why you think that? All I'm seeing is comments in favour of making it explicit that such pages are not desired, and for treating them as we do currently. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::The why is my gut is telling me that's what would happen. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I agree with voorts. Too risky. Cremastra _talk 22:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't think people converting disambiguation pages to articles is a common occurrence. If there was a dab page for John Smith (actor) and John Smith (politician), why would anyone convert that to an article? They'd just create a third article for John Smith (footballer). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, given the complaint by some sports editors about redirected athlete articles not containing "biographical info" at their targets, I could definitely see nav pages being gradually expanded with more and more details. The utility of it for sportspeople is strictly when a subject appears in multiple team member lists or tournament results pages, where it essentially works as a filtered search result. JoelleJay (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• I'm also skeptical and decidedly unenthusiastic about having yet another type of page that looks sort of like a disambiguation page. I think most if not all the cases could be covered by either creating a stub or redirecting to the most prominent target (with hatnote or other cross-reference as applicable) or making a plain disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:57, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Most of the initial navpages listed above wouldn't qualify for a disambiguation page in my opinion, since there aren't multiple distinct concepts sharing the same name. Are you proposing that the definition of "disambiguation page" be expanded to fit them? jlwoodwa (talk) 19:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I suggested two other alternatives besides simple disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 20:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::We shouldn't encourage stub creation for non-notable topics. I actually think disambiguation page could use some expansion, especially due to the demonstrated confusion with SIAs noted above. (Really SIAs should be split into disambiguations and proper list articles.) CMD (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I don't disagree that many SIAs are nothing but disambiguation pages (I long ago wanted SIAs to be limited to projects that had a demonstrated need for them and were able to formulate some guidance for usage). There used to be some waffley language in the disambiguation guidance that allowed more than one blue link in the description in rare cases where there was not an existing article and the topic had substantive coverage in more than one article. I don't recall what happened with that, but with appropriate guardrails to prevent abuses, I'd be OK with that. But I don't think cases where there was a bare mention in two places should qualify. older ≠ wiser 10:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::What does a "bare mention" mean? If it's just a passing mention or some sort of mention in an article that adds nothing to a reader's understanding of a topic, that falls under category four, which I don't see anyone supporting.
• :::::I do agree that a lot of examples so far can be replaced by stubs or redirects to one target, but they're generally the types of pages we don't want to be navpages. The examples in the categories that have more support have more of a staying life (Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting is still around and Ethiopia in World War II has been returned to an SIA while not fitting what an SIA should be, two of the three main examples). I think navpages in the mold of these two are going to be (or at least should be) the main use case. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 19:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::An earlier version of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armand_Biniakounou&diff=prev&oldid=1287108223 Armand Biniakounou] was suggested as a possibility -- that is the sort of bare mentions that provide pretty minimal value to a reader. Ethiopia in World War II seems fine as a set index. Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting is pretty exceptional -- basically three nutjobs had a meeting and then gave differing accounts of what happened. If it is a notable event, it probably should have a separate article. Or perhaps pick one with the fullest account as a redirect and cross-reference with the others. older ≠ wiser 20:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::Ethiopian in WWII could be its own article per WP:SS. Having it as a nav page is frankly just lazy. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::It was specifically an WP:SIA before this discussion. CMD (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{outdent|7}} I don't think that was correct either. It doesn't qualify for a SIA. It's clearly its own topic that should either be an article or a redirect to an appropriate existing article. I personally think it should be deleted per WP:REDLINK. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Well tangent to the navpagae discussion, if you're interested in the Ethiopia in WWII topic, there is a low participation merge discussion at Talk:Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (Ethiopia) that has been languishing for a month which I feel creates content that should be moved to that title. CMD (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think directing readers to the existing content we have on the topic is better than making it a red link and hoping someone writes something eventually. There's a lot of content about Ethiopia in World War II out there right now, why not direct readers to it if they search for it? The search feature is actively unhelpful in this case, mostly targeting World War I–related articles. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :I think creating a stub would result in at least some of the articles being taken to AfD due to a lack of notability for a standalone article, while a redirect could create a WP:SURPRISE if there isn't enough care taken to account for the other areas the topic is covered. I'm not sure if a nav page is the way to go for all of the situations they have been created for so far, but I think there may be something here if a clear policy is made for when and when it isn't okay to create such pages. It isn't like similar issues don't already come about from other types of pages and redirects already. Let'srun (talk) 13:54, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the current proposal is akin to creating an index of topics for Wikipedia, somewhat like a concordance, thus potentially resulting in a large expansion of pages to be maintained. It might be better to find a more automated approach, perhaps based on keyword tagging and searching. isaacl (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Based on a suggestion from some of you, I decided to denavify the Fuentes-Trump-West meeting page by retargeting it to {{section link|Nick Fuentes|Dinner with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago}}, as it appears to contain the most information about the event. I also added hatnotes to the other three sections linking to that one. – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:I've also redraftified Amari McCoy and speedied the resulting cross-namespace redirect, which has just been deleted. Wow, now that was an extremely speedy deletion! – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

When I first introduced the concept, I used the disambig icon and the name navigation page as placeholders that I'd let other users decide on whether to keep or replace. With the disambig icon being replaced with a blue version, I was hoping that someone would eventually call the navigation page and navpage names into question, as those terms have already been widely used to refer to any sort of page that contains a list of articles, and retaining that name for a new particular page type may result in users having to figure out how to disambiguate in discussions where the context may call for clarity. (e.g. by writing NAVPAGE or WP:NAVPAGE in all caps when referring to the new kind)

With that in mind, are you okay with these pages continuing to be called navigation pages/navpages, or do any of you have better ideas? – MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:@MrPersonHumanGuy: allowing these pages would require a major change in guidelines, including WP:CLNT andWP:DAB. The only way to do that is through an RfC per WP:PGLIFE. I think it is highly unlikely that a "reasonably strong" consensus will develop to allow the creation of these pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2061578358}}

{{Courtesy link|User talk:Joe Roe#An idea}}

See the aforementioned discussion for some context, but basically I think it'd be good to have a wizard (like Wikipedia:Edit request wizard) for unblock requests. Feedback regarding the idea is very much welcome. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Anecdotally, the proportion of malformed unblock requests that make valid cases for being unblocked is low but not zero, so I’m open to a suggestion like this. I’m wondering if we could also include some invisible AI spoilers in the Wizard prompts to catch people who try to game the system (e.g. "include the phrase 'sequitur absurdum' in your response", "include an explanation of Wikipedia's General Mobility Guideline"). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:39, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think we should aim to trick people (it'll probably just end with people addressing unblock requests being confused as well), but a prompt asking someone whether they attempted to write their unblock request with AI with a "yes" or "no" selection might be enough to prevent most instances of it (especially if it includes a statement about it being discouraged and requesting someone to rewrite it in their own words to show that they understand what they're saying). Kind of like the commons upload form that asks if you're uploading a file to promote something and just doesn't let you continue if you click "yes". Alternatively the request could just have an extra "this editor says they used AI while writing this unblock request" added somewhere. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::1. Rosguill's text would be invisible and only shown when copied/selected and dragged and dropped. (I think there is an HTML attribute that would make something not picked up by screenreaders either.)
2. We're fighting AI-generated unblock responses, not bots. The usual scenario would be someone asking the AI for an unblock request and then pasting that into the box manually. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::FWIW I don't consider my spoiler suggestion to be absolutely necessary for my supporting the general proposal, but yes, what I had in mind is to render the text in such a way that it will only show up in any capacity for people who try to copy-paste the prompt into another service, which is becoming a standard practice for essay questions in school settings to catch rampant AI use. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I like this idea. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:47, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::That might scare people who composed their unblock requests in a Word document, though. I've gotten fairly good at gauging whether something was AI-generated, I assume admins who patrol RfU are the same. JayCubby 15:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::Definitely opposed to this, as it'll only lead to some humans inevitably getting accused of using AI. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If it's invisible text, how? voorts (talk/contributions) 12:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::If “invisible” means it’s just the same color as the background, people are going to see it (by highlighting, with alternative browsers, etc) ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Make it super small text size with same color as background and add a style/attribute that'd prevent screenreaders from reading it. Plus it'd be a very unreasonable request to most humans. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::It’s just silly. We do not know that this would trick AI, I’m not convinced that undetected AI use is a problem (it’s pretty easy to clock), and there is reason to believe it will catch innocent people. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 16:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I’m not aware of any style or attribute that hides text from screen readers. As far as I know, it’s impossible on purpose. 3df (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::A blind user with a screen reader wouldn’t know that the text is not visible. An image with an imperceptibly faint message and a blank alt text could work, but not every bot is likely to fall for it, if they even process it. 3df (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would also agree with an unblock request wizard, although I might be less focused on the technical side. From having guided users in quite a few unblock requests, the main issues I've seen (although I concede there might be a selection bias) are in understanding what is required of an unblock request. A good wizard would summarize WP:GAB in simple terms to help blocked users navigate this – as writing a good unblock request is certainly less obvious than it seems for people unfamiliar with Wikipedia.{{pb}}One idea that could be explored would be to structure the unblock request, not as a free-form text, but as a series of questions, such as {{tq|What do you understand to be the reason for your block?}} and {{tq|Can you provide examples of constructive edits you would like to make?}} Of course, these questions can be adapted based on the specifics of the block (a user caught in an IP rangeblock wouldn't see the same questions as a username-hardblock, for example), but this could make for a good starting point that would be less confusing than the current free-form unblock requests. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::I like that idea. My concern is that the specific reason for the block may not always be clear from the block template used, and the block log entry may be free text that, while important for identifying the reason for the block, is not easy to parse by a wizard.

::Example: "disruptive editing" could be anything from extremely poor English to consistently violating the Manual of Style to deadnaming people to ... you name it. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Good point. What I had in mind was something like this part of the AfC wizard, where the user can click to select their situation, rather than it being automatically guessed from the block template (which would be prone to frequent errors). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:03, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Could be a hybrid work flow. For certain block templates, e.g., {{tl|uw-copyrightblock}} or {{tl|uw-soablock}}, there could be a set of standard questions, for others, e.g., {{tl|uw-block}} there could be a "choose your situation" flow. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::That could be great! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:54, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm having some difficulty imagining a positive reaction by an aggrieved editor facing a menu of options, but I think a more concrete proposal might help. Perhaps those interested in a multiple workflow concept could mock something up? isaacl (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Going to do it! Ideally, it shouldn't be something that would comfort them in their grievances or make them feel lost in bureaucracy, but more something like "we hear you, these blocks happen, for each of these situations you might be in, there is a way to get out of it". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I do think that some editors don't realize they even can get unblocked at all. Or that it isn't even nessecarily their fault if they're an IP editor... some situations where innocent bystanders were affected by a rangeblock and frustrated come to mind. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think it's easier than asking someone to copy a template and then edit wikitext. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:54, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::My comments weren't about the general idea of a guided workflow, but a branching workflow based on the answers to initial questions. It brings to mind the question mazes offered by support lines. Although I think a more general workflow might be better, I'm interested in seeing mockups of a branching workflow. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::I like the general idea, but anything with prompts, etc needs to take into account there are at its most basic three categories of reasons to request an unblock: (1) the block was wrong and shouldn't have been placed (e.g. "I didn't edit disruptively"); (2) the block is not needed now (e.g. "I understand not to do that again"); and (3) the block doesn't make sense.

::Sometimes they can be combined or overlap, but for type 2 appeals it is generally irrelevant whether the block was correct or not at the time. Type 3 often shouldn't be unblock requests but often it's the only way people see to get help so anything we do should accommodate that. Perhaps a first question should be something like "why are you appealing the block?" with options "I understand the reason given but think it was wrong", "I understand why I was blocked but think it is no longer necessary" and "I don't understand why I was blocked."

::I'm neutral on an AI-detection, as long as it is made explicit in instructions for those reviewing the blocks that a request using AI is not a reason in and of itself to decline (using AI is discouraged, not forbidden, and someone may say yes even if they've only used it to check their spelling and grammar). Thryduulf (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Currently working on User:Chaotic Enby/Unblock wizard! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:05, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Regarding the sub menu for "I am not responsible for the block": my preference is not to provide a set of pre-canned responses like "Someone else I know has been using my account" and "I believe that my account has been compromised". I think we should avoid leading the editor towards what they may feel are plausible explanations, without any specific evidence. isaacl (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::True, that makes sense, even though I tried to provide an outlet with the "I don't understand" before. Although I'm planning a full rework of this on the advice of @Asilvering, as whether the user believes they have been blocked incorrectly might not be the most important first question to ask. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree with isaacl that the "I don't understand" outlet is just not good enough.
What did asilvering suggest as a more important thing? Aaron Liu (talk) 19:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Basically, sorting appellants into boxes that are actually useful for giving them tips, rather than asking them to tell us what their rationale for appeal is. We're not actually all that interested, functionally, in whether an appellant thinks the block was wrong or not (lots of people say they are when they were obviously good blocks), so there's no reason to introduce that kind of confusion. There are, however, some extremely common block reasons that even a deeply confused CIR case can probably sort themselves into. eg, "I was blocked for promotional editing". "I was blocked as a sockpuppet". etc. -- asilvering (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That makes a lot of sense! Aaron Liu (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I think it would be better for the blocking admin to do the sorting with the aim of providing relevant guidance. Maybe it's better to have a block message wizard. isaacl (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::What is relevant guidance depends in part on when and why someone is appealing, which is unknowable to the blocking admin. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{outdent|6}} Twinkle has blocking built in. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Does it customize the block message with guidance to appropriate policies based on input from the admin? isaacl (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::See :File:MediaWiki 2025-04-15 02-32-10.png and :File:MediaWiki 2025-04-15 02-32-55.png. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::There are different ways to implement my suggestion. For example, the standard template (whether added by Twinkle, another tool, or manually) could be enhanced to accept a list of preset reasons for blocking, which the template could turn into a list of appropriate policies. Twinkle can feed the preset reason selected by the admin to the template to generate the list. isaacl (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::You can already select various different block templates (see :CAT:UBT) through Twinkle that link to appropriate PAGs or use a generic block template to list reasons for a block / link to relevant PAGs. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Perhaps whatever tips that would be provided by an unblock wizard could instead be added to the block templates? I appreciate that there's a tradeoff between crafting a message that's too long to hold the editor's attention, though. I just think that communicating this info earlier is better. isaacl (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There is never going to be consensus to rework every single block template and extensively modify Twinkle. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:07, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Regarding what is unknowable to the blocking admin: I was responding to Asilvering's comments on sorting blocked editors into categories for which appropriate tips can be given. I agree there can be benefits in providing a guided workflow for blocked editors (and am interested in seeing what gets mocked up). I just think that it will improve efficiency overall to start providing targeted guidance as soon as possible, and providing some kind of automated assistance would make it easier for admins to do this by default. isaacl (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think it's a good idea. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

• I do think many people get tripped up on the wikicode(and when they click "reply" to make their request it adds to formatting issues) so I'd be interested in what people can come up with. I do agree with Issacl above regarding pre-canned responses. 331dot (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I think we could point people to the relevant policy pages, then give them a form to fill out, sort of like the draft/refund/etc wizards. Don't give them a prefilled form, instead an explanation (maybe even a simplified version) of the policies from which they are expected to explain their rationale. JayCubby 20:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Perhaps a block message wizard for the admin would be more helpful: they can specify the relevant areas in which the editor must be better versed, and the wizard can generate a block message that incorporates a list of relevant policies for the editor to review. isaacl (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Over the last few days, I have worked on User:Chaotic Enby/Unblock wizard, now a fully functional unblock wizard prototype!

Currently, you need to add User:Chaotic Enby/Unblock wizard.js to your common.js for the subpages to load correctly. If there is a consensus to make it official, it could be moved to MediaWiki namespace and called through mw:Snippets/Load JS and CSS by URL, like other wizards currently do.

Please give me your feedback on it! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Prose comments: On the first page, remove the comma before "and" and remove the words "only" and "key". I suggest rewording the last sentence to "For an idea of what to expect, you can optionally read our guide to appealing blocks." Not sure if the word "optionally" is strictly needed, but I get the idea behind it. Toadspike [Talk] 18:15, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Done! I left "Optionally", mostly because I don't want to drown the people using the wizard with more pages to read, especially since some points of GAB are redundant with the wizard's questions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:18, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Sockpuppetry page: "While not binding," is extremely confusing. Is it trying to say that not everyone gets the offer? If so, I would remove it, since "often" later in the sentence means the same thing. "good will" --> "goodwill". I think the standard offer should be explained, especially if it is listed as a question later on.

::The whole sentence "While some blocks for sockpuppetry..." seems unnecessary. Blocked users shouldn't be worrying about who can lift their blocks. At most this should be a short sentence like "Some blocks for sockpuppetry cannot be lifted by regular admins." or "Some unblock requests require CheckUser review." I would prefer removing it outright, though.

::I think "Which accounts have you used besides this one, if any?" should be strengthened to "Please list all accounts you have used besides this one." This isn't some fun optional question you can answer partially – it should be clear that any omission will likely end in a declined unblock request. Toadspike [Talk] 18:25, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::For the first one, I just wanted to avoid the "I went through the standard offer, so I'm entitled to an unblock!!!" which I've actually seen from some users, but you're right that it is a bit redundant. Also implementing the other changes, thanks a lot for the detailed feedback! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Promo page: Remove commas before "or" and "and", remove "in these cases", remove "just" (it is not easy to tell your boss "it can't be done"). I would change the "and" before "show that you are not..." to "to": "to show that you are not..."

::"why your edits were or were not promotional?" is a bit confusing. I would just say "why your edits were promotional" – if they disagree, they are sure to tell us. I'm open to other ideas too.

::The third question is very terse and a little vague ("that topic"). Suggest: "If you are unblocked, will you edit any other subjects?" (closed) or "If you are unblocked, what topic areas will you edit in?" (open)

::The username question isn't explained at all – perhaps say "If you were blocked for having a promotional username" instead of "if required", with a link to a relevant policy page.

::I tested this and was surprised to find that the questions aren't required. I would make at least the first and second questions required or at least check that the form isn't empty before allowing it to be submitted. Toadspike [Talk] 18:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I've made the changes, with the exception of changing "and" to "to": usually, admins will want editors blocked for promotional editing to show that they're not only here to edit about their company, which involves more than just disclosing their COI. I'm going to add a check for the forms, that's definitely an oversight on my side. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::It seems the autoblock request has nowiki tags around it that prevent transclusion. I'm also pretty sure it should be subst'd, not transcluded. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toadspike&diff=prev&oldid=1286904128]. Is it correct that there is no field in the unblock wizard for a reason? It looks like that is a valid template param. Toadspike [Talk] 18:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, my bad. I forgot to remove the nowiki tags after I tested it on testwiki.wiki. The message at Wikipedia:Autoblock does tell users to transclude (not subst) the template, apparently with no message although that was also confusing to me. Thanks again! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:54, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::IP block: The second sentence feels like it could be more concise, but it also is missing an explanation of our open proxy rules. I think it needs words to the effect of "VPNs are not okay, unless you really really need one". I would also prioritize the term "VPN" over "open proxy", since that is less confusing to most people. It might be worth linking to a page that lists other VPN-like services/device settings that often cause issues, if we have one. Toadspike [Talk] 18:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Tiny nitpick on the IP block form: Since there are no user input fields, why do I get a "your changes may not be saved" pop-up when I try to leave the page?

::Something else form: remove comma before "and". Not sure if "(if applicable)" is needed, but again I understand the intent and won't argue against it. Toadspike [Talk] 18:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, the "your changes may not be saved" is another thing I forgot to tweak the code for, since it reuses the same code for all pages. I'll fix this and make the other changes you listed after eating! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:First, thanks for getting the ball rolling! Now, some some technical concerns (yes, I realized this is only a prototype):

:* There will need to be a fallback when the user has JavaScript disabled, is using an outdated browser, or the script fails to load. Right now I see something about "the button below" when there's no button. Assume helpful users will deep-link into the wizard from time to time.

:* The from will need a copyright notice, and a "you are logged out" warning if the user is logged out.

:* There will need to be to a meaningful error message for every possible problem that can occur when saving the edit: e.g. network error, session failure, blocked from own talk page, globally blocked, talk page protected, warned or disallowed by edit filter, disallowed by spam blacklist, edit conflict, captcha failure, and probably a dozen other reasons I haven't thought of yet. For example, I just tried from behind a globally blocked IP and I got a big pink box full of unparsed wikitext with no "click here to appeal a global block" button. One way to avoid most of these problems might be to submit the request through the web interface instead of the API.

:I realize other scripts may play fast and loose here, but (except for the copyright and logged out messages) the worst that can happen is someone decides they don't like the script and uninstalls it. Here, they're stuck, and can't even ask for help on WP:VPT. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks a lot! Yes, those points are the reason why I really wanted feedback – lots of stuff I didn't really think of spontaneously, but that will very much have to be considered before deploying it. I'll try to work on this!{{pb}}For the case of JavaScript not being installed/not working, I'm thinking we could show a message informing the user that the wizard is not functional, and link them to WP:GAB and/or a preloaded unblock request template on their user talk page?{{pb}}A bit curious about the copyright notice, what do you mean by that?{{pb}}Regarding logged-out users, I agree that a message informing the user would be helpful, although I'm also thinking of adding options for IPs (depending on whether they have a regular block, rangeblock, hardblock, proxy block, etc.) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:39, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Mediawiki:wikimedia-copyrightwarning should appear next to every form where someone can make a copyright-eligible edit. And the "Submit" button, now that I think about it, should probably say "Publish" so they know the whole word can see their appeal. We don't want someone putting personal info in there thinking it's a private form. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks, didn't realize that! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Giving a late update, but I've been working on it again, and the two first bullet points have been completed! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:49, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Glad to hear it! Please ping me when you've finished everything else. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::And it's done! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:37, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{like|Wonderful!}} JayCubby 20:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Now that the Chart extension is now live, and articles are starting to use it, I thought I would resurrect this discussion, which produced a skeleton for Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/Charts.

I think it's clear that the migration to Chart is going to be a gradual and non-trivial process:

• The graph of oil production figures at {{section link|Petroleum|Production}} has no obvious major problems with its presentation, and, indeed, someone is already on it.
• The party composition graph used in {{section link|Scottish Parliament|Elections}} would have its migration blocked by Chart's hardcoded colour scheme.

I think that skeleton needs filling out, and a consensus needs to be built on migrating the graph templates (in addition to other templates that use Graph), and enumerate any necessary feature requests. EnronEvolved^{My Talk Page} 20:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think this is already being covered by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GraphBot. Please discuss with @GalStar about anything related to this migration. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 01:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the ping. Currently we're getting very close to a complete setup.

:* I'm automatically porting certain graphs from demographics related pages. I'm happy to consider any other highly repeated graphs.

:* Marking a graph as Template:PortGraph is the current method of finding graphs to port.

:* @Snævar wrote a script to mark automatically portable graphs that use Template:Graph:Chart for User:GraphBot to port. When this becomes active hopefully marking graphs for porting would be as simple as adding a name= attribute to a graph that uses Template:Graph:Chart.

:* There still are about 14,000 pages in need of porting, so even if it was as simple as adding a name attribute, that'd need to happen atleast 14,000 times (some pages have multiple graphs).

:Cheers, GalStar (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::*Spanish wikipedia, like English Wikipedia, also has around half of its graphs using Template:Graph:Chart. It would make sense to see if they are interested in GraphBot. Other wikis have a lower percentage. Eastern Europe has graph templates originating from Russia.

::*I might expand my script that marks automatically portable graphs by applying it to other graph templates. Then we know all of the graph template transclusions that can be ported, and which ones are waiting on WMF.

::*Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/Charts has an explaination of how the .tab and .chart pages work.

::*Myself, Tacsipacsi and Theklan (a greek user) have agreed to how graphs which use datapoints from wikidata will work. An example of that kind of template is Template:Graph:Lines.

::Snævar (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm curious as to how the datapoints from wikidata will work. I'm happy to support the Spanish wikipedia if they are interested. GalStar (talk) 22:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Change the Wikipedia logo to a pride flag for pride month 155.190.1.6 (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:It's a nice idea, but it'll never pass. If we changed it for Pride, it would create a precedent of changing it for other events as well; who gets to determine which events merit such a change and which don't, and how do we avoid appearing politically biased in the process? DonIago (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::Also… Wikipedia is international in scope, and June isn’t “Pride month” in a lot of countries. Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::@155.190.1.6 Put another way, there's a difference between flying a pride flag to Keep Up with the Joneses and really being a part of the gay rights movement. If Wikipedia were an organ of the furry fandom, this would make sense, but alas, we might be better off raising awareness for autism and type 2 diabetes. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Okay, this is just a slippery slope argument. And Wikipedia, as an organization rather than an encyclopedia, does have political leanings -- pro-human-rights and freedom of access to information. We shut down the entire website to protest SOPA/PIPA, if I remember the acronym correctly. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Slippery slope is only a fallacy when the start is quite unlikely to cause the end of the chain of causation. I think what DonIago said is pretty likely. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Having edit histories show net increases in an article's length in green, and decreases in red, can encourage editors to think that more is always better. Often, it's the opposite, whether in terms of expressing the same information more concisely, or removing information that is irrelevant to most people who are reading about a topic. I suggest that this formatting be changed, so that it's always the same color, or two colors be used that do not convey a value judgment (purple and orange, say).

Robert (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:The colours do not have a "value judgement". That is just a convention for markup. Red can mean lucky or could mean stop. Green could mean environmentally friendly or go. But here is means a count of removed or added. Redis more likely to be problematic than green, but vandals can add rubbish as well as remove good text. You can change your own style sheet to your preference. For red you will be wanting to set class="mw-plusminus-neg" to purple and change green on "mw-plusminus-pos" to orange. let me know if you want the exact .css text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

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)

:@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)

Further input is needed at Wikipedia talk:Four Award#Why not use the draft symbol instead? as I think it's a great idea. Looking back at the icon, it really doesn't make sense why a "no opinion" icon would represent the start of an article. We already have a dedicated symbol for that; though I do see why people would want to not change as the icon has remained the same for 16 years. Generalissima has made [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Four_Award_with_draft_icon.svg this] new potential icon incorporating the draft symbol. Yelps ᘛ⁠⁐̤⁠ᕐ⁠ᐷ critique me 09:07, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Update: it has been changed, and looks much better. For new entrants to the discussion, the old symbol was just a gray circle with two horizontal lines for some reason; now it's a pen. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

If I want to read the English Wikipedia article on the thirty-eighth parallel, I should see the T-H written in superscript after the Roman numeral 8. In my opinion, "38ᵗʰ" is correct and "38th" is not, and we don't need to buy little letters cast in lead to publish this the right way. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:The best place to propose this is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers but unless you have a stronger reason for change than just "in my opinion" then I don't think it is likely to gain a consensus in favour. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this makes them look neater with almost no effort, as in

"Do: A deer, a female deer."

Even if the editors at the Style Guide don't agree to this now, if Wikipedia has code to automate this ready to go, that would make the change much, much easier and then worth considering. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:You would need to propose this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of style, but I don't think it is likely to get consensus. Especially as I don't think conversion would be easily automatable without errors. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Do you think so? You can already add the plural S to a hyperlink by writing "[ [ query ] ] s". What would make periods and commas any different? Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:What are you requesting? The link Do-Re-Mi has punctuation, and the two links you gave are piped to text with punctuation. Are you asking for wiki to automatically insert punctuation and, if so, based on what criteria? This seems like a case where stet should apply. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::Again, please appreciate the difference between

::"Do: A deer, a female deer."

::and

::"Do: A deer, a female deer."

::It's subtle, but I think the second looks much cleaner. Shushimnotrealstooge (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I would say the first looks cleaner, as the punctuation isn't part of the word you're linking, so it shouldn't be part of the link. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::In this case I would also agree with Chaotic Enby in that I also think the first looks cleaner. To me the second suggests that somehow the apostrophe/quotation mark is relevant to "Do" in this case, which makes it more confusing (at least for me) Emily.Owl ( she/her • talk) 19:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Seconding this. There is no such word as "do:" and we should not use markup that implies that there is. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Telling me which of two phrases is clearer is irrelevant. What is it that you are requesting? Adding punctuation? Removing punctuation? E, none of the above?

:::If you show the relevant wikisource and how you would like wiki to render it, maybe then we can discuss whether it is dresirable. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

::::They are asking for the trick where links automatically include other letters (eg. ducks becomes ducks) also apply to punctuation. CMD (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::And also for it to apply to punctuation preceding the link, e.g.{{code|"Sergeant Adams"}} producing the same output as {{code|"Sergeant Adams"}}, and {{code|"Do:}} producing the same output as {{code|"Do:}}. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::OK. That would seem to break existing wikisource. There's a similar issues with non-ASCII letters, e.g., fermé renders as fermé rather than as fermé. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't see why the English Wikipedia should support the French past participle suffix. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Is the code for rendering wikilinks maintained by the English wikipedia or by the Wikimedia Foundation? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I would think that there's per-wiki configuration for suffixes. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tqb|Follows so-called "linktrail rules" localised per each language.|source=mw:Help:Links#Internal links}} Aaron Liu (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::{{tqb|$linkTrail {{=}} '/^([a-zàâçéèêîôûäëïöüùÇÉÂÊÎÔÛÄËÏÖÜÀÈÙ]+)(.*)$/sDu';|source=https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/g/mediawiki/core/+/7a531f1ba62c2f1b3116e460704a187adec75e9a/languages/messages/MessagesFr.php#304}} So it's already there for French wikis. Aaron Liu (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd oppose that change since general convention for hyperlinks for the past decades across the Internet has been not to include leading or trailing punctuation in hyperlink text. Similar to how trailing punctuation should not, in general, be bold or italic even if the preceding word(s) is/are. Skynxnex (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::We don't include terminal punctuation in quotation marks unless such punctuation's part of the source text either. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I am presently working on a proposal/project named TetWix which aims to develop mechanisms that facilitate quicker and easier ways to distribute large-form Wikipedia content like the Wikipedia database downloads in a fashion that should hopefully transfer a large burden of data service and bandwidth costs from WMF resources to volunteers in the userbase, primarily by employing technological approaches which avoid the need (And reduce the desire) to download a large (~25GiB for the English Wikipedia) data dump every two weeks.

An outline and description of the project, its aims and rationale (Presently a slow work-in-progress owing to illness) is located under my userspace, and may be discussed at The Project Talk page.

It is hoped that this proposal/project may help to make access to Wikimedia datasets much quicker and easier for the majority of users who like to keep local copies of the databases - Primarily by making these inherently compatible with and distributable via Bittorrent - While at the same time considerably reducing WMFs data export bills and equipment operating costs. It may also make Sneakernet-based distribution of Wikimedia content and updates easier in locations where internet access is slow, non-existent, or prohibitively expensive.

Thankyou. :-)

ᛒᚱᛟᚴᛂᚾ ᚢᛁᚴᛁᚾᚷ (Broken Viking|T·C) 10:39, 16 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)

Currently, if a search fails on a non-English Wikipedia (e.g., Swedish), users receive no prompt to check other language versions. To find the article, they must either:

1. Manually navigate to www.wikipedia.org (which isn’t linked on the failed search page), or
2. Search for a widely translated article (e.g., "Adolf Hitler") and switch languages from there.
3. Edit the url (e.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab) ➜ de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verbesserungsvorschl%C3%A4ge/Feature-Request) but this is tedious and often fails unless the article name is the exact same in both languages.
4. Use the language properties tab under the main menu column. (unintuitive, complex, too many clicks and does not even work the way it is supposed to).

This causes unnecessary strain both for users and wikipedia servers. My suggestion is to add the language selection prompt next to the search bar or at the upper right corner where it usually sits for most articles. This feels like a fast and easy solution to me. One could also improve on this further and translate the search term via some dictionary, gpt or online translator and give suggestions for articles in other languages that contain that term (e.g. This article doesn’t exist in [current language]. Try: [English] [Deutsch] […]" (linking to the same search term in other languages). Rgamer2005 (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:If you precede the search term with the other Wikipedia's language code, the search result should take you there. E.g. searching de:Inge Lange will take yo to the German Wikipedia entry. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:This does exist, but has some limitations on when it appears; IIUC, it's computationally-intensive to search all the wikis, and if there are too many results from multiple wikis then it's difficult to programatically select the optimal results. (and other limitations). The technical docs and details are at mw:TextCat, and the example at the top still works: "As an example, searching English Wikipedia for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=m%C3%A1lv%C3%ADsindi málvísindi] (‘linguistics’ in Icelandic) gets no results, so results from the Icelandic Wikipedia are shown." IIUC, that section of search would disappear if/when we have more local search results (and other factors). I hope that info helps! P.s. I've passed along this idea to the devs, in case it helps spur additional features. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::Special:Search/málvísindi does give relevant results from the icelandic wiki. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Quiddity (WMF) Maybe the search can check all languages selected in that user's "babel" userboxes? This is probably the best way to have results from multiple wikipedias. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That will help almost nobody. It's literally a rounding error. It would only affect logged-in editors, to begin with, and among them, it would only affect the tiny minority that have a Babel boxes in their userpage. A quick insource: search indicates that there are maybe 60K user pages with Babel boxes at enwiki – total, for all time. :Category:User en and its subcats contain about [https://petscan.wmcloud.org/?language=en&output_limit=&rxp_filter=&cb_labels_yes_l=1&cb_labels_no_l=1&manual_list_wiki=&cb_labels_any_l=1&ns%5B2%5D=1&show_soft_redirects=both&subpage_filter=either&namespace_conversion=keep&common_wiki_other=&smaller=&wpiu=any&wikidata_item=no&min_redlink_count=1&combination=subset&format=html&maxlinks=&templates_any=&max_sitelink_count=&output_compatability=catscan&interface_language=en&search_query=&langs_labels_yes=&common_wiki=auto&ores_prediction=any&labels_no=&categories=User+en&depth=2&wikidata_source_sites=&negcats=&show_redirects=both&project=wikipedia&edits%5Bflagged%5D=both&outlinks_any=&wikidata_label_language=&search_max_results=500&sortorder=ascending&labels_yes=&after=&search_filter=&doit= 90K user pages with Babel boxes] and/or equivalent. Let's say that it's a cool 100K editors. Since more than 95% of registered accounts haven't made any edits for over a year, probably less than 5K Babel-labeled accounts are active. But let's round up to 10K, for easier math.

:::Last month, we had 1.15 Billion-with-the-big-B unique devices reading at least one page on the English Wikipedia. That's 1,150,000,000 readers for at most 10,000 editors. That means 1 logged-in editor might have a Babel box for every 115,000 visitors. That's just 0.00087% of readers.

:::And even that's probably a significant overestimate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::And the fact that someone has a language listed on their Babel box does not guarantee that they'd be looking to the wikis in that language, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:You missed:

:5. Go to https://www.wikipedia.org and choose the language you want.

:WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Various branches of mathematics use commutative diagrams, i.e., directed graphs whose edges represent functions and where the composition of functions between two vertices is the same for every path between those vertices. CTAN{{cite web

| title = Comprehensive {{Stylized LaTeX|4}} Archive Network

| url = https://www.ctan.org/

| access-date = June 18, 2025

}}

has several packages{{efn|E.g., ams-cd, diagxy, tikz-cd, xymatrix.}} that simplify drawing, and usig one of them inside of {{tag|math}} would be much more convenient than building diagrams outside of wiki and importing them as images. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:How about the {{tag|math}} syntax discussed at Help:Displaying a formula#Commutative diagrams? DMacks (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::They are what I'm trying to avoid. The first is labor intensive and the second is a configuration control nightmare. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::The second one is {{tq|building diagrams outside of wiki and importing them as images}}. I wonder if we have precedent of adding TeX packages? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{notelist-talk}}

{{reflist-talk}}

I'am 13 and reading it for reading time and I came across red when it says and I'm surprised because there's kids in grade 4 reading Wikipedia

did think before making the did you know. look at the last one it says. "that the Fuck Tree has been described as a "physical embodiment of desire"?

hover over the link and read what it says

155.190.1.5 (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:We are not censored for minors or morality. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:25, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:Advice for parents Aaron Liu (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:I remember taking my son to Hampstead Heath nearly 40 years ago when he was about two years old and unwittingly straying into the gay cruising area (I happen to be straight). We met some very nice people and the experience didn't do him any harm. What exactly are you complaining about? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sexual morality is something that parents should discuss with their children; it's not up to wiki to judge or enforce it. There are a lot of things that I believe should be kept away from children; other parents may disagree on some of them, and wiki policy is to not act In loco parentis.

::I don't allow homosexuals to dictate my sexual behavior; why should they allow me to dictate theirs? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)